http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BISWA RANJAN SAHOO & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUSHANTA KUMAR DINDA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   515        1996 SCALE  (5)297

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 8TH DAY OF MAY,1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Santosh Hegde, Sr.Adv. K.N.Tripathy and Janaranjan Das, Advs. with him for the appellants.                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered: Biswa Ranjan SahoO & Ors. V. Sushanta Kumar Dinda & Ors.                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO.9158 OF 1996          (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13684 Of 1996)                       [ CC - 2066/96 ]                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of Central  Administrative   Tribunal  Cuttack  Bench  made  on October 10,  1994 and  March 20,  1996 in  O.A.No.137/93 and Review Application No.7/95 respectively. The orders disclose the alarming  state of  affairs regarding  lack of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, which is expected to assess merit  and recommend for appointment of competent and meritorious persons  according to  the list  prepared by the competent Selection  Board. Reverse  is the  result shown in the process  of selection.  Pursuant  to  the  advertisement No.6/92 for  filling up of six posts of chargemen, ’B’ Grade in  Mechanical   Electrical  Division,  the  fake  selection process appears  to have  been gone by and some persons came to  be   appointed  including   the  petitioners.  When  the selection was  questioned, the  Tribunal had  called for the record and on the perusal of the record, noted as under:      "The perusal  of the Answer Book of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    the candidates  with Roll No.001078      (Umakanta  Panigrahi)   shows  that      though at  Sl.No.3,  in  the  first      page of  the answer book, his marks      were shown as ’00’ it was change to      ’20’. At  Serial Number  11,  there      has been correction of the original      marks to  25,  the  original  marks      appearing to be 20. This is how the      total was  brought to 95. In second      page of  the answer book though the      mark given  for  Question  No.11  B      were 10,  later 5 has been added by      someone to  make  it  15.  In  page      No.4, after  the answer 1/8 written      by the  candidate, there  could  be      seen some  alternation  to  0.8  by      someone. The  facing  page  or  the      Answer Book  of  the  of  candidate      001235  (Sri  Biswa  Ranjan  Sahoo)      show over  writing at  three places      At  Sl.   No.2,  original  mark  16      appears to  have been changed to 18      and total  91 appears  to have been      changed to  94. It  is not possible      to mark out how and why answer book      001567 of  candidate  Rajani  Kanta      Guru  was  evaluated  by  different      examiner and  marks noted in pencil      as also his signature as apparently      initials on  this answer  book  are      totally different from the initials      of the  other  examiner.  There  is      practically no  explanation  coming      forth  as   to  how  and  why  this      examiner was  different  from  this      paper alone.  We have   perused the      original tabulation  which  reveals      that  the  marks  obtained  by  the      petitioner in  the  interview  were      altered    and  then total  made of      the marks  obtained in  the written      test as well as the interview. Even      for a  naked eye, it   appears that      the   marks    obtained   by    the      petitioner were  originally 24  and      the   same   reduced   to   22   by      subsequent correction  and  totally      with this correction total was also      brought down to 117 from 119. "      A perusal  thereof would  indicate the  enormity of mal practices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is whether  the principle  of natural justice is required to be followed  by issuing  notice to  the selected persons and hearing them? It is true, as contended by Mr. Santosh Hedge, learned senior  counsel appearing  for the petitioners, that in the  case of  selection of an individual his selection is not found  correct in  accordance with  law, necessarily,  a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case  like mass  mal-practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore,  the question  emerges: whether  the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they  needed  to  be  heard?  Nothing  would  become fruitful by  issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

brunt. Under  these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing  notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and  given selection and appointment. The procedure adopted are  in  flagrant  breach  of  the  rules  offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      It is  needless to  mention that the General Manager of the Railways  should personally conduct the enquiry and find persons who  are responsible  for this mal-practice and take appropriate disciplinary  action against  those persons  and submit the  result of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.