ORDER on Interim Relief
Per Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
1. The 57 applicants of this OA were all appointed in the Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal. Official respondents 1 and 2, and the private Respondent No.3, though being placed at New Delhi, the immediate official superior of all the applicants was the Respondent No.4, i.e., the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Aligarh. However, since in view of the past history of the associated cases having been entertained at this Bench of the Tribunal, and thereafter by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, notices were issued in this case on the very first date of listing of the case on 09.05.2012, we do not have to allude to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this Principal Bench of the Tribunal at this stage.
2. A large number of vacancies existed in a number of Presses of the Union of India in the year 2007. The Respondent No.4, the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, issued a vacancy Notification in the Employment News dated 10-16.11.2007 (Annexure A-4, pages 42 and 43) calling for applications against 18 categories of posts. The applicants herein applied in response to that advertisement, and faced the selection test, consisting of interview and trade test, in January 2008. On 23.01.2008, the Respondent No.4 declared the result of the selection tests, and the list of selected candidates was put on display. The individually selected candidates were thereafter issued offers of appointment in the format, as given in Annexures A-11 and A-12 dated 27.03.2008, by the office of Respondent No.4. Consequent upon acceptance of those offers by the present applicants, the Respondent No.4 thereafter issued appointment orders dated 17.04.2008 (Annexure A-6, page 46), dated 18.04.2008 (Annexure A-6, page 47), dated 18.04.2008 (Annexure A-6, page 48), again dated 18.04.2008 (Annexure A-7, page 49), dated 18.04.2008 (Annexure A-8, page 50), dated 18.04.2008 (Annexure A-9, page 51) and dated 17.03.2008 (Annexure A-10, page 52 of the OA) to the applicants before us. Till that stage, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
3. The present applicants joined their services and started working. However, soon the Respondent Union of India received complaints regarding large-scale irregularities in the selection processes adopted at many of its Presses, and the then Minister in charge of the Presses had ordered the stoppage of the joining of the remaining selected candidates in many of its Presses. Some of the selected candidates, who were declared selected, were thereafter denied joining the posts offered to them through such appointment on the ground of irregularities committed in the selection process. At the same time, several others like the present applicants, who had also been selected along with them, had already been allowed to join their Group ‘D’ posts. Several of the disappointed selected candidates approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in various applications, based upon their place of residence, from which they had applied for the said post under Respondent No.4. OA-1194/2009 Diwakar Vs. Government of India Press and others was decided on 07.12.2009. Some others had filed OA No.2412/2009, and OA No.377/2010. All the applicants of all these OAs had been aggrieved that while some had joined the Group ‘D’ posts such as Assistant Plate Maker, Offset M/C Attendant and Assistant Binder, but when they reached the office where they were supposed to report for duty, they found a notice pasted on the notice board to the effect as follows:-
“As per the directions from the Additional Director, Directorate of Printing, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, the process of recruitment/filling up of the vacant posts is hereby suspended forthwith."
4. While deciding the OA No. 2412/2009 on 03.03.2010, this Principal Bench of this Tribunal had issued the following directions to the respondents:-
“2. Learned counsel for Applicants states that more than one year has elapsed since this communication was given and the appropriate decision is still awaited. In a similar case of Sh. Diwakar Vs. Government of India Press and others OA-1194/2009, the directions were given on 7.12.2009 to pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the above order.
5. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to give appropriate decision in this matter within two months as far as Applicants in the present OA are concerned. The directions would be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is disposed of. No costs”.
6. The respondents still failed to pass an order, whereafter a Contempt Petition No.494/2010 was filed, whereupon the respondents rejected the claim of the applicants stating as follows:-
“...it is the considered view of the Government of India that Shri A K Sharma and other applicants to OA No. 2412/2009cannot be appointed to Group D posts”.
7. While deciding the OA No.1194/2009 (supra) filed by one Shri Diwakar, who had also been selected for the post of Assistant Binder in the same selection examination, and was even allowed to join on 03.04.2008, but on the next date he was not allowed to perform his duties, and had been informed that the process of recruitment has been suspended forthwith pending investigations, and appropriate decision would be taken as soon as the investigation has been completed, the Tribunal had noted as follows:-
"4. The question here is, even if some irregularities have been reported in the selection process and the matter is being investigated, the result would affect all the persons who have been selected in the said recruitment process. When all other 18 persons have been allowed to join, we do not understand, why applicant alone should be denied appointment on this ground. In any case, as on date the respondents have not recorded any specific findings on the irregularities alleged to have been committed in the recruitment process, therefore, there is no justification to deny appointment to the applicant alone”.
8. When these directions were not complied with, the said applicant Shri Diwakar approached this Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.165/2010, which was disposed of by an order dated 04.05.2010, taking note of the submissions of the respondents/alleged contemnors, supported by a formal order dated 27.04.2010, that before considering the case of the applicant for appointment, it would be legally and administratively prudent to wait for the outcome of the reassessment of the vacancies that can be filled up. The Bench had appreciated that the charge of contempt was not made out, and that Contempt Petition was closed on 04.05.2010. Thereafter, MA No.1580/2010 was moved by the respondents seeking further extension of time to implement the orders in the OA and the CP, which was allowed on 10.08.2010. When still the directions were not complied with, the said applicant Shri Diwakar approached this Tribunal again in CP No.808/2010 on 20.10.2010. Thereafter, while deciding the CP No.808/2010, the Bench made the following order:-
“4.1On 28.12.2010, the respondents produced before the Tribunal an order dated 7.12.2009, passed by them in which the same plea ‘as there has been irregularities in the selection process, therefore, applicant cannot be selected’ had been reiterated. Observing that this point had already been dealt with in the judgment dated 7.12.2009, the Tribunal directed personal presence of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Director, Govt. of India Press (Contemnor 1) on the next day of hearing to answer the charge of contempt.
4.2 x x x x x
5. In their additional affidavit filed on 19.1.2011, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the respondents have, inter alia, stated about submission of the report by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Administrative Ministry i.e Urban Development) revealing several irregularities as well as the respondents having identified the delinquent officers and issued them charge sheets. It has further been submitted that the investigations have revealed about excess vacancies having been advertised and some more time needed to examine the matter as to whether the vacancies were available or not.
5.1 x x x x
5.2 However, the respondents have not rendered any factual explanation with regard to the basic premises of the Tribunal’s original order in the OA regarding the remaining 18 candidates from the same selection process having been allowed to join in March, 2008 itself; and only the applicant being singled out by denying such an opportunity to him. Even the learned counsel for the respondents, in course of the oral submissions, would not be able to throw any light with regard to the present status of such persons. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents submitted, in case positive directions are given, they would appoint the applicant also.
We fail to understand the reasoning given by respondents in not giving appointment to the applicant when all other persons selected with the applicant are being allowed to continue from same selection. If they have found out irregularities were indeed committed in the selections, then the selections should have been cancelled for all those, who were selected by following due process of law. Till date, in spite of several opportunities having been given, the respondents have not spelt out what irregularities were, in fact, committed in the selection and whether it was such in nature that the selections cannot be given effect to. They have also not been able to explain why those persons are still being allowed to continue, who had joined from the same selection prior to the applicant when as back as on 25.2.2009 the applicant was informed the process of recruitment is suspended pending investigation and appropriate decision would be taken as soon as investigation is completed. Respondents should have taken the investigation carried out by them to a logical conclusion. After all, if irregularities were committed in selection, it should affect one and all. They have also not explained the merit of applicant qua those persons who have already been allowed to join and why till date no final orders have been passed by them on this subject. Applicant has stated he belongs to the OBC category and was selected under the physically handicapped quota. Why that quota has not been filled is another question?
9. On a careful consideration of the entire gamut of facts, we are of the view that the respondents have not been able to satisfactorily explain as to why they should not be proceeded for contempt of court under the powers vested in this Tribunal as per Section 17 of the CAT Act read with the Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992. However, before taking further action in the matter, we give one last opportunity to the respondents to pass final orders on the basis of vigilance investigations carried out by them with regard to the selections. If respondents are not scrapping the selection, applicant should also be allowed to join because till date no action has been taken by them on the basis of over assessment of vacancies also. In any case nothing has been stated by respondents that the vacancy of physically handicapped was also wrongly advertised, therefore, applicant alone cannot be made to suffer.”
(emphasis added)
10. In another parallel case, the Bench had further recorded the finding in the case of Shri Dharamvir Singh Vs. Union of India and others in OA No.3264/2010 dated 22.03.2011 as follows:-
“It is clear, therefore, that the case of the Applicant is of a piece with the case of Shri Diwakar, the applicant in OA number 114/2009. The learned counsel for the Applicant has rightly contended that the Applicant cannot be treated differently from the other candidates, who had been allowed to join the post of Assistant Binder. The Applicant too would sink or swim with them. But he could not be left in the lurch and singled out for discriminatory treatment by not allowing him to join the post on the ground of irregularities in the process of selection, while others had been allowed to join in the similar circumstances. The learned counsel for the Respondents would only contend that the inquiry into the matter had been completed and the report submitted by the inquiry authority, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Ministry of Urban Development, the first Respondent. An order dated 13.12.2010 had been placed on record, which was issued following the report of inquiry. It is further stated in the said order that disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the erring officers. It has further been observed that:
11. Some candidates who were selected and offered appointment but were not allowed to join after 3rd April, 2008 due to aforesaid suspension of recruitment process filed cases before various Central Administrative Tribunals and obtained directions for completion of investigations and for taking final decision in the matter.
12. It is well established principle that the candidates selected through the vitiated selection process have no vested right of appointment and this principle has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in following cases:-
(i) Union of India Vs. Chakradhar 2002 (3) SCC 146
(ii) Dilbagh’s case 1993 (1) SCC 154
13. This matter has been examined in entirety and was also discussed in a meeting taken by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development with official from Ministry of Law and it has been decided that the lists of selected candidates cannot be acted upon due to inherent defects.
14. The Bench that decided the similar/parallel cases in OA No.2880/2010 with OA No.2856/2010, then went on to record as follows:-
“The learned counsel for the Respondents failed to explain whether any action had been taken against those who had been selected along with the Applicants and had been allowed to join the posts. The learned counsel for the Respondents would only contend that the Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended in December 2008 that no more appointments to Group 'D' posts should be made. He further pointed out that there were several irregularities in the process of selection as found out by the inquiry conducted into that process.
15. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondents carry no conviction. The only question is that some of the persons selected in the tests along with the Applicants have been appointed to the post and are continuing to reap the benefit of the same, whereas others, who were also selected in the same tests/examination, have been treated differently. This is sheer discrimination and is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The Applicants have to be given the same treatment as given to those others who have been appointed to the same posts for which the Applicants had also competed. If any action is taken against the persons who have been appointed earlier, the Applicants would also meet with the same fate.
16. In the result the OA succeeds. The Respondents are directed to appoint the Applicants to the posts for which they had competed and found successful. The above directions would be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. There will be no orders as to costs.
17. The respondents, Union of India, thereafter approached the Hon’ble High Court in three connected Writ Petition (C ) No.4745/2011 with Writ Petition (C ) No.5962/2011 and Writ Petition (C ) No. 5825/2011, which came to be reserved for orders together on 22.11.2011, and the orders were pronounced on 07.03.2012 by the Honble Acting Chief Justice speaking for the Honble High Court of Delhi, in which the Honble High Court has held as follows:-
18. Law is clear on the subject. It is held by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 that mere selection does not confer upon any person an indefeasible right for appointment. Therefore, merely because a person is selected would not mean that he has to be given appointment and the appointment can be stalled for justifiable reasons. It is also trite law that if large scale irregularities are found in the selection process, selection stands vitiated and such selection process does not give vested right of appointment. In Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, this very principle was enunciated in the following manner by the Apex Court:
19. Before we proceed further, it will be appropriate to peruse the decisions relied upon by the parties. In the case of Krishna Yadav (supra), the allegations of favouritism and arbitrariness in holding the selection for the post of Taxation Inspectors by Subordinate Selection Board were made. Those candidates whose performance was excellent were not selected. An inquiry was ordered by the Supreme Court to be held by the CBI. The report revealed acts of favouritism selection without interview even on the basis of fake or ghost interview, tempering with the records and fabrication of documents etc. In such circumstances it was held that entire selection was vitiated even in respect of those who had already been appointed and had been working for a past few years. It was further observed individual cases of innocence have no relevance in such circumstances. So far the respondent is concerned, reliance has been placed on a decision reported in (1986) II LLJ 468 SC : (1986)II LLJ 468 SC Kashi Nath Dikshita v. Union of India and Ors. on the proposition that a case where reasonable opportunity of hearing is denied to a delinquent, it vitiates the inquiry and renders the order of punishment invalid. There cannot be any doubt about the proposition of law as propounded in the above noted case. Reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing has always to be provided to a delinquent officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by the Department. The case however, pertains to an inquiry against an individual officer based on allegations of misconduct on his part. Another case to which our attention has been drawn is reported in (1991)1SCC662 : (1991) 1 SCC 662 Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors. In this case 1200candidates were called for the WP(C) interview, for filing up 54 posts. It was not though a proper course but held that it would not vitiate the selection, more particularly when it could not be said to be tainted with mala fide or ill motive. It was also held that allocation of 25% of total marks for viva voce test was excessive and the selection was found to have been vitiated but it was found that whole selection was not necessary to be cancelled as those who had joined long before in pursuance to such a selection had not been impleaded as parties before the High Court and also in view of the fact that unsuccessful candidates who had chances of being selected if the marks allocated for the viva voce test had been reduced, were directed to be appointed to the posts which were kept vacant for them by means of interim orders of the Court.
20. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the person who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selected. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.
21. However, what weighed with the tribunal was that non-appointment of these persons, when large number of persons had already been appointed, would amount to hostile discrimination. This aspect is to be examined having regard to the fact that the persons who had already been given appointment were allowed to join before the complaint was received. When the complaint was received, going by the serious allegations, the Government took the decision not to make further appointments. At the time when the orders were passed by the tribunal, the Central Vigilance Officer had already completed the inquiry and submitted his report. This fact was informed to the tribunal. In his report submitted in the year 2010, the CVO has found the following irregularities:
(a) Posts advertised were in excess of the number of posts essentially required to be filled up.
(b) Appointments by direct recruitment were made in excess of the approved post.
(c) Approval of the competent authority for relaxation of orders of band on filing up of vacant posts was not obtained.
(d) Appointment to the post of Artist Retoucher was made without obtaining approval of the competent authority.
(e) Large number of interviews for various posts were held in extremely short time which is not amenable to fair assessment.
(f) Number of appointments made were of relatives of existing employees of Press which could not be on merit alone and nepotism and favouritism cannot be ruled out.
(g) Appointments were made without any verification of character and antecedents.
22. After submission of this report, decision dated 13.12.2010 was taken that the list of selected candidates cannot be acted upon and those candidates who were selected and offered appointment but were not allowed to join duties after April, 2008 would not be appointed. This decision was also produced before the tribunal. Notwithstanding the same, the tribunal treated the action of the petitioners as discriminatory. It is difficult to comprehend this approach of the tribunal. No doubt, once the report is submitted by the CVO, it becomes the bounden duty of the Government to take final view on the said report and if the process is to be annulled, such action should be taken immediately so that those who are already appointed by the reason of vitiated selection process should also be made to go. However, that would not mean that once by the CVO it is found that there are serious irregularities, direction should be given to appoint others as well on the pretext that it would otherwise entail discrimination.
23. In State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65, a situation akin to the present had arisen. In that case, the Court found that many persons were given appointment to Class III and Class IV posts by the appointing authorities misusing and abusing their powers by violating the rules and instructions and by indulging in favouritism and nepotism with impunity. When this aspect came to light, services of such persons were terminated. The High Court granted them relief holding that otherwise it would be violative of equality clause contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Overturning the decision of the High Court and holding that no question of discrimination arises in such cases, the Supreme Court made the following pertinent observation:
“67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr. [1995] 1 SCR 126; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35; Union of India (Railway Board) and Ors. v. Subhaiah and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2890; Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, [1996] 1 SCR 1154; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 1 SCC 35; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services and Ors., 1997 ECR 801 (SC); Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3678 and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 3983 and Directorate of Film Festivals and Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1640 .
68. The facts of Jagjit Singh's case were that the respondents who had given the highest bid for 338 square yards plot in Sector 31A, Chandigarh defaulted in paying the price in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment. After giving him opportunity of showing cause, the Estate Officer cancelled the lease of the plot. The appeal and the revision filed by him were dismissed by the Chief Administrator and Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh respectively. Thereafter, the respondent applied for refund of the amount deposited by him. His request was accepted and the entire amount paid by him was refunded. He then filed a petition for review of the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, which was dismissed. However, the officer concerned entertained the second review and directed that the plot be restored to the respondent. The latter did not avail benefit of this unusual order and started litigation by filing writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 18-3-1991.
69. Thereafter, the respondent again approached the Estate Officer with the request to settle his case in accordance with the policy of the Government to restore the plots to the defaulters by charging forfeiture amount of 5%. His request was rejected by the Estate Officer. He then filed another writ petition before the High Court which was allowed only on the ground that in another case pertaining to Smt. Prakash Rani, Administrator had restored the plot even after her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. While reversing the order of the High Court, this Court observed: (Jagjit Singh case, SCC pp.750-51, para 8)
“Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent Authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent Authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent Authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law -indeed, wherever it is possible, the court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent Authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the case (sic court) and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the court nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations -would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles.”
77. In Directorate of Film Festivals and Ors. v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and Ors. (supra), a two-Judge Bench, after making a reference to the judgments in Jagjit Singh's case and Gursharan Singh's case, observed:
“When a grievance of discrimination is made, the High Court cannot just examine whether someone similarly situated has been granted a relief or benefit and then automatically direct grant of such relief or benefit to the person aggrieved. The High Court has to first examine whether the petitioner who has approached the court has established a right, entitling him to the relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of such examination, the fact that some others, who are similarly situated, have been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some relevance. But where in law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is not entitled to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been illegally granted relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That would be enforcing a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in law.”
24. There is no question of discrimination in the present case as well. No doubt, the petitioners had shown laxity in not taking proper decision in the matter, however, in such circumstances, direction should have been to take final view on the basis of CVO report within a time bound manner and in case the Government comes to the conclusion that the selection is to be saved and no action is to be taken against the persons already appointed, in that eventuality, these respondents could also be directed to be appointed. On the other hand, if the Government takes action within specified time which would have been allowed by the tribunal, then the tribunal could have directed taking action against those already appointed because of irregular procedure.
25. We had summoned the record and we find that after the CVO had submitted the report, the same has been discussed at various levels. The opinion of the Ministry of Law is also taken. There is a note dated 18.11.2011 by an official citing the opinion of the Ministry of Law and proposing, namely, accepting the findings of the report of investigation of complaint; setting aside the process of recruitment in all the Presses; discharging of the appointed candidates on the basis of said vitiated selection process; identifying officers involved in irregularities and initiating disciplinary action against them and the manner in which such vacancies should be filled up in future to avoid recurrence of such malpractices. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law and the factual position emerging from the records, we are of the view that directions given by the tribunal are unsustainable. We, thus, set aside the impugned orders directing appointment of the respondents in these writ petitions allowing these writ petitions. At the same time, we substitute the order of the tribunal with the following directions:
“Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall also be appointed.”
26. We may make it clear that we have not touched upon the question as to whether findings of the CVO that the selection process is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein is correct or not. It is not even necessary to do so as all those who are appointed are not before us and we cannot take any view in the matter in their absence. Therefore, needless to mention, in case the petitioners decide to scrap the selection process and the services of those appointed are terminated, they shall be within their right to challenge the action of the Government on its own merits and as per law.
27. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Emphasis supplied).
28. As a result, in view of the above orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, all the applicants in the three OAs in which orders favouring them were passed by this Tribunal, and who were respondents in the three Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court, failed to get permission for joining employment, since in the Writ Petitions filed by the Union of India and Others, the orders and directions of the Tribunal were substituted, as per the emphasis supplied portion in the above cited para 13 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s common judgment.
29. After the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 07.03.2012 in Writ Petition (C ) No. 4745/2011, the respondents had then moved CM No. 5978/2012, 5987/2012, wherein the Hon’ble High Court later passed the following clarificatory order on 14.05.2012:-
“In our judgment dated 7th March, 2012, we had observed that the Government can take appropriate decision in the matter after it has received report of the investigation conducted by the CVO. In para 14, it was very clearly observed that in so far as this Court is concerned it had not touched upon the question as to whether findings of the CVO that the selection process is vitiated because of irregularities stated therein is correct or not. A decision is stated to have been taken by the competent authority. Once such a decision has been taken, it is always open to the Central Administrative Tribunal where the applicants intend to challenge the same, to decide the same on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in our orders dated 7th March, 2012.”
30. Still, as empowered by the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Respondent No.3, has then issued the impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 03.05.2012 in his official capacity (and not in his personal capacity, which could have allowed the applicants to implead him as a party respondent by name, which they have unnecessarily done in this case), in which it was ordered as follows:-
“Sub:- Implementation of High Court of Delhi Orders dated 7.3.2012 in WP (C ) No.4745/2011, WP(C ) No.5962/2011 and WP (C ) No.5825/2011 filed against CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi’s orders dated 18.4.2011 in various OAs filed by S/Shri Dharam Vir Singh, A.K. Sharma and Ors. and Harish Kumar and Ors.”
31. In compliance of the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the subject mentioned above, the competent authority has decided to cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidates including those who have already joined service in respect of Government of India Press, Aligarh. The Press may accordingly take necessary immediate action as per procedure and submit a compliance report to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through the Government counsel. The subject recruitment process in the above mentioned cases thus stands cancelled.
2. The Government counsel be requested to prepare a draft of the compliance report to be filled in the Court and be faxed to this Directorate urgently to avoid any further delay in the matter.
3. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
32. Through this, the whole selection and recruitment process undertaken in the above mentioned case stands cancelled, as allowed to be ordered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Respondent No.3 also issued to Respondent No.4, in his official capacity, a further instruction dated 04.05.2012 through Annexure A-2, as follows:-
“Sub:- Implementation of High Court of Delhi Orders dated 7.3.2012 in WP (C ) No. 4745/2011, WP(C ) No.5962/2011 and WP (C ) No.5825/2011 filed against CAT Principal Bench, New Delhis orders dated 18.4.2011 in various OAs filed by S/Shri Dharam Vir Singh,A.K. Sharma and Ors. and Harish Kumar and Ors.
In reference to his O.M. No. 269/789/348 dated 04.05.2012, Manager, GIP Aligarh is hereby conveyed that services of the appointees as covered in the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the above mentioned cases are to be terminated forthwith without any notice as the selection process itself stands as scrapped i.e. the subject recruitment process has been set aside by the competent authority.
2. It is already conveyed that in compliance of the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the subject mentioned above, the competent authority has decided to cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidates including those who have already joined service in respect of Government of India Press, Aligarh. The Press may accordingly take necessary immediate action as per procedure and submit a compliance report to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through the Government counsel. The subject recruitment process in the above mentioned cases thus stands cancelled.
3. The Government counsel be requested to prepare a draft of the compliance report to be filled in the Court and be faxed to this Directorate urgently to avoid any further delay in the matter.
4. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
33. Thereafter, through similarly worded orders as at Annexure A-3, the Respondent No.4 has terminated the services of the present 57 applicants, who are before us in this OA.
34. It is clear from the above detailed description of the background and the facts of the instant case that the impugned termination of the services of the present 57 applicants had been ordered by the Respondents in the belief that they are acting on the basis of the clear cut orders and directions of the Honble Delhi High Court through its order dated 07.03.2012, in which the Honble Delhi High Court had taken the task of even substituting the directions of the Tribunal, which may be once again repeated here by us, as follows:-
“Final view in the matter shall be taken within one month from the date of this order. If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well. However, if for some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall also be appointed.”
(Emphasis supplied).
35. It is seen that since the Union of India had been allowed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to take a stand, and out of the two options ‘X’ and ‘Y’, as broken down below, they have chosen to follow the option ‘X’:-
“X-If the proposal, as mentioned above, namely, report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would be taken qua the persons already appointed as well.
Y- However, if for some reason it is decided not to accept the proposal and to continue with the existing appointments then the respondents herein shall also be appointed.”
36. The applicants are now before this Tribunal against such orders of the termination of their services, on the ground that though the impugned OMs Annexure A-1 and A-2 have been purportedly passed by the respondents in compliance of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s orders, but are actually totally contrary to the findings and directions given by the Hon’ble High Court, since the Hon’ble High Court had not given any specific direction to the respondents to terminate the services of the present 57 applicants, nor had the Hon’ble High Court gone into the validity of the issue of the irregularities committed in the selection process, and, therefore, the action of the respondents is highly malafide, arbitrary and perverse. They have alleged that the respondents have illegally used the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as a handle to terminate the services of the present applicants, whereas the Hon’ble High Court had only given directions to the respondents to take a final view in the matter in the facts and circumstances one way or the other. They have also taken the ground that it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have thoroughly examined and considered each and every fact of the case, and then come to a decision by passing a speaking order with regard to the validity of the selection process, which has not been done by the respondents, but rather the respondents have passed a cryptic and stereotyped order, and have not even given any show cause notice to the present applicants, even though in the meanwhile they had completed their probation period satisfactorily, and, therefore, the passing of the impugned OMs to scrap the whole selection process itself is in utter disregard and even violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
37. Further submissions have also been made and grounds have been raised in the present O.A. regarding the fact of the existence of vacancies etc., which need not be considered by us just now, at the stage of consideration for grant of Interim Relief. It is seen that the Reliefs and the Interim Relief, as sought for by the present applicants before us, are as follows:-
Relief:
“a) Quash and set aside the impugned OM No.7/17/2010-A.I(Vol.II) dated 03.05.2012, OM No. 7/17/2010-A.I(Vol.II) dated 04.05.2012 and OM No. PF/P-1/2008 dated 04.05.2012, purported to be an OM relating to termination of the services of the applicants from their respective posts;
b) Any other order that may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
Interim Relief:
“a) stay the operation of the impugned OM No. 7/17/2010-A.I(Vol.II) dated 03.05.2012, OM No. 7/17/2010-A.I(Vol.II) dated 04.05.2012 and OM No. PF/P-1/2008 dated 04.05.2012, and restrain the respondents from termination the services of the applicant and/or giving effect to any such OM.
b) Restrain the respondents from obstructing, preventing or disallowing the applicants from discharging their duties in any manner in their respective posts.
c) Any other order that may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be passed”.
38. The respondents have submitted for our perusal their complete File No. C-13019/1/2011-Ptg, including the full Note Sheet. It is seen that the implications of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court have been discussed in the Note Sheets from page-32 onwards, mentioning the urgency to receive back the main file from the DOPandT. It is seen that after the receipt of the file back from DOPandT (pages 33 and 34 of the Note Sheet) the facts of the case have again been noted. It is seen therefrom that the Additional Secretary and CVO was investigating irregularities in recruitments in respect of six Presses of the Govt. of India, at Minto Road, Mayapuri, Nilokheri, Aligarh, Faridabad and Coimbatore. The reports of the CVO in respect of Faridabad and Coimbatore Presses are still awaited, and in Minto Road Press, no recruitment had taken place till 03.04.2008, when the whole process of selection and appointments was suspended on the directions of Hon’ble Shri Ajay Maken, the then MOS (UD), dated 02.04.2008. In respect of Mayapuri and Nilokheri Presses, the Directorate of Printing had been directed to identify the officers responsible for the irregularities, and initiate disciplinary proceedings. It was noted that in the case of Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, under Respondent No.4, the report of the ASandCVO had been placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It has further been noted and considered that as per the law cited by the Hon’ble High Court itself in its judgment, citing the Apex Court findings in Dilbagh Singh’s case 1993(1) SCC 154 and in the case of Union of India vs. Chakradhar 2002 (3) SCC 146, if there are genuine and bona fide reasons to believe that the entire recruitment process was vitiated by irregularities, in that event the whole selection may be cancelled.
39. It is seen that that thereafter the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development has recorded his Noting on 09.04.2012 as follows:-
“This file was submitted to MOS (UD) on 19.01.11 (p 30/n) for taking a decision on the report of ASandCVO on the alleged irregularities in recruitments of staff in GIP Aligarh during 2007 and 2008. The subsequent Developments, recorded on p31/n onwards include the judgment of the High Court of Delhi (HOD) dated 7.3.12 in WP (C ) No.4745/2011 etc., which is analysed in the linked file No.7/17/2010-AI(Vol-II), placed below. In that only, the HCD have directed M/o U.D. to take a final view on the report of the CVO within one month.”
2. In that order, the HCD have also concluded that if the impugned selection procedure is found to be wrong/malafide, then all consequential action should follow. Further, the HCD have also quashed the order of the CAT dated 1.4.2011, in which it had directed to issue letter of appointment to such of the selected candidates, who had not been issued final appointment orders.
3. It is now required to take a final view on the report of CVO. We may accept the report and its finding, quash/cancel all the appointments/selections made through the impugned selection process, including the list of those candidates that were not yet issued appointment letters.
4. This process for recruitment may be started de novo, but not linked to the impugned/quashed selection process.
40. After this, the Hon’ble Minister of State for Urban Development Shri Saugata Roy, recorded his comments as follows:-
“The matter has not been properly placed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The very important fact is that complaints of irregularities have been received in respect of 6 GOI Presses which are Aligarh, Coimbatore, Faridabad, Minto Road, Nilokheri and Ring Road, Maya Puri and no complaint of any irregularity has been received in respect of 5 Presses which are Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street. This should have invariably been submitted in the affidavit filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
Secretary (UD) to verify the fact whether the report of the CVO could be applied to the recruitments made in to GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street since there was no complaint of any irregularity.
If it is confirmed that the CVO report is not applicable to the recruitments made in to GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street, then Secretary (UD) to take immediate action for making submission on behalf of Government of India in the High Court of Delhi intimating the correct factual position that complaints of irregularities have only been received in respect of 6 GOI Presses and there are other Presses as mentioned above where there is no complaint of any irregularity and accordingly the Government of India intend to go ahead with the process of recruitments made in the GOI Presses of Koratty, Nashik, Rashtrapati Bhawan, Santragachi and Temple Street since the report of CVO is not applicable to recruitments made in these Presses. The CVO report may be agreed to in respect of 6 GOI Presses where complaints of irregularities have come to notice and cancel/terminate the appointment in respect of all candidates including those who have already joined the service.
May kindly approve the course of action as suggested above”.
41. The above proposal was approved by the Hon’ble Urban Development Minister, who is vested with the delegated powers of the President of India, on 27.04.2012, which led to the impugned orders at Annexure A-1 and A-2 being ultimately passed by the respondents.
42. We have also gone through the Investigation Report dated 30.11.2010 submitted by Shri R.C. Mishra, the then Additional Secretary and CVO of the Ministry to the then Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development regarding his Investigation Report on the alleged irregularities in Recruitment during 2007-2008 in Govt. of India Press, Aligarh, which had been produced by the respondents before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court also earlier. It is seen that this is a 42 page Report, and the summary of the main findings in Part-IV of the Report itself run into 4 pages, pin-pointing 14 proven irregularities in the process of Recruitment in the Govt. of India, Press Aligarh.
43. However, it is seen from the Original file as submitted by the respondents department that nowhere has an attempt been made to relate the 14 findings arrived at by the CVO in regard to irregularities in his report, and relate them to the cases of the number of persons going to be affected.
44. But while considering the present request for Interim Relief, it is not as if this Tribunal today has a clean slate to write upon. The responsibility of maintaining judicial propriety, and respecting the ratio decidendi of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and the High Court’s clarificatory order dated 14.05.2012, sits heavily on our shoulders. The ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Union of India vs. O. Chakradhar (supra) also weighs heavily upon our minds. The present 57 applicants before us have been summarily removed from their earlier appointments consequent upon the clear cut liberty and directions given to the respondents by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of Delhi on 07.03.2012, stating that if the report of the CVO is accepted, the necessary action would have to be taken qua the persons already appointed as well, which covers the present 57 applicants before us. As a result, the whole process of selection itself has been cancelled by the respondents, on the premise and belief that in doing so they are acting on the specific directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to decide upon the report of the CVO, in one of the two alternative manners allowed by it in clear terms.
45. Within days of the present 57 applicants joining in their posts, they had come to know that the whole process of their selection had come under a cloud, and a sword of Damocles has been hanging over their heads for the last four years, because of the Court cases before this Tribunal, and before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. No decision was taken by the respondent authorities to declare the probation of the already appointed persons to have been completed. However, merely by virtue of their having joined their duties, and having started working before the orders for stoppage of further joining were issued, the applicants had acquired at least some iota of rights within the parameters of administrative law. It would have to be seen, examined and decided later on as to what quantum of rights had accrued to them in the case of the present 57 applicants, but that can be decided only when the OA is finally decided. But, even if the process of ‘termination simplicitor’ was to be adopted by the respondent authorities while purporting to act on the report of CVO regarding irregularities in the process of selection, as perceived by them to have been permitted by the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, at least some attempt should have been made to relate the cases of the individual employees concerned to the 14 findings of irregularities arrived at by the CVO in respect of the process of selection undertaken by the Government of India Press, Aligarh.
46. Without relating the cases of the persons already allowed to join before the ban on the joining of the remaining selected persons was imposed in February, 2008, to the 14 findings of the CVO regarding alleged malpractices, blanket orders removing everybody, who had joined service, may perhaps not qualify to be legally correct, even under the definition of termination simplicitor.
47. Therefore, it appears to us that the respondents have not properly acted even while adopting the option described as ‘X’ in para 16 above in the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, since that required the report of the CVO to be accepted and necessary action to be taken qua the persons already appointed by relating the action of termination to the report of the CVO, which does not appear to have been done.
48. For the purpose of grant of Interim Relief, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely, (i) the applicants ought to be able to make out a prima-facie case; (ii) the balance of convenience should lie in their favour; and (iii) irreparable harm is likely to be caused in the case of not being granted the interim relief.
49. It is seen that in the instant case, in the light of the clarification issued by the Hon’ble High Court on 14.05.2012, without relating the findings of the CVO to the process of selection having been vitiated and irregularities having been committed to the cases of the applicants in each category, and perhaps individual applicants also, the respondents ought not to have passed the blanket orders for termination of the services of all of them. Therefore, it appears that the applicants have been able to make out a prima-facie case, the balance of convenience lies in their favour, and irreparable harm is likely to be caused to them in case the interim relief is denied to them. Therefore, we stay the operation of the impugned orders Annexure A-1 dated 03.05.2012 and Annexure A-2 dated 04.05.2012 until further orders.
50. Issue Dasti. 51. List OA on 17.07.2012.