Railways Can't Cancel Duly Published Promotion Panel On Vague Administrative Grounds; Prior Notice To Selected Candidates Mandatory: Calcutta HC

Background Facts

A selection process for the post of Goods Guard against the 15% LDCE quota was initiated by the Railway Authorities vide a notification dated 01.12.2021. The respondents were permanent railway employees who participated in it. A panel of 27 successful candidates including the respondents was approved and published on 08.12.2022 based on merit in the written test. After successful medical examination, the respondents were sent for requisite training on 20.03.2023.

While the respondents were undergoing the 50 days training, the panel was suddenly cancelled by the respondent authorities, vide office order dated 17.04.2023. It was cancelled on alleged “administrative account” based on a complaint and a vigilance enquiry. The respondents challenged the cancellation order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. vide an order dated 21.04.2023 directing the respondents to file a representation and the authorities to consider the same and pass a reasoned order.

The representation filed by the respondents was disposed of by the order dated 23.05.2023. The order reiterated the decision of cancellation. Therefore, it was challenged by the respondents in a second Original Application. The Tribunal set aside the cancellation orders and directed the authorities to undertake an exercise to segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.

Aggrieved by the same, the Railway Authorities filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the Railways that the authorities could not overlook the vigilance report and were under a legal obligation to cancel the promotion granted to the applicants. It was contended that a notice was given to the candidates on 12.04.2023, and after giving them an opportunity of hearing. The final order was passed on 23.05.2023. It was further submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself in concluding that there was no basis for cancellation of the promotional process. The reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Dileshwar Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others, whereby under similar circumstances the cancellation of a selection process based on a vigilance report was approved.

On the other hand it was contended by the applicants that the railway authorities failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under RBE No. 192 of 2019 and the note below Rule 228 of IREM Vol. 1, which require that due notice must be given to selected candidates before cancelling a result. It was also submitted that the respondent authorities failed to produce the vigilance advice along with their reply before the Tribunal as mandated under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The applicants contended that the direction of the Tribunal for segregating tainted and untainted candidates was unwarranted and fit to be set aside. It was contended that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the promotional process, based on their merit performance, and the result wherein they were selected and had also been sent for training.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the communication dated 12.04.2023 was just an intimation regarding cancellation and could not be considered to be an opportunity of hearing. It was observed that communication was not accompanied by the investigation report and did not disclose any irregularity. It was further observed that the communication did not afford an opportunity of showing cause.

It was further observed that the speaking order dated 23.05.2023 passed in compliance with the Tribunal's order was unsustainable, as it was devoid of any reasons. It was held that assigning of reasons is required by the authority to establish a link between the consideration and the conclusion. In the absence of reasons, the order was invalid.

It was held by the court that the respondent authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of giving due notice to the selected candidates as required under RBE No. 192 of 2019 and the note below Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I. Therefore, the cancellation of the panel was clearly unsustainable. Further the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision in Dileshwar Kumar case was found to be misplaced by the court, as it was factually different from the respondent's case. It was held that the Dileshwar case involved consideration of various specific irregularities brought on record, whereas in the respondent's case no reasons had been assigned and the cancellation was sought to be justified by a vague assertion of administrative account.

It was further held that the direction of the Tribunal for segregating tainted and untainted candidates was unsustainable. It was observed that such an occasion could arise only if a reason was assigned with reference to any specific malpractice. Since no reasons were assigned, there was no basis to conclude that any malpractice was committed.

The decision in the case of Vinodan T. and Others vs. University of Calicut and Others was relied upon by the court wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that an appointing authority cannot scrap a panel of selected candidates during its validity except for well-founded reasons.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Railway Authorities was dismissed. Further the direction for segregation contained in the Tribunal's order was set aside by the court.

Case Name : Union of India and Others vs Anup Mondal and Others

Case No. : W.P.C.T. 204 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Gouranga Kumar Das

Counsel for the Respondents : Subrata Santra