1996 INSC 0805
                                         Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Others

                                                           Vs

                                        Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Others

                           Civil Appeals No. 9157 of 1996 With No. 9158 of 1996

                              (K. Ramaswamy, Faizanuddin, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      08.05.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench made on 10-10-1994 and 20-3-1996 in OA No. 137 of 1993 and Review Application No. 7
of 1995 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
of 1992 for filling up of six posts of Chargemen, 'B' Grade in Mechanical and 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 the candidates with Roll No. 001078 (Umakanta
                  Panigrahi) shows that though at Sl. No. 3, on the first page of the answer-book, his
                  marks were shown as '00' it was changed 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. On the second page of the answer-book though the
                  marks given for Question No. 11-B were 10, later 5 has been added by someone to
                  make it 15. On page 4, after the answer 1/8 written by the candidate, there could be
                  seen some alteration to 0.8 by someone. The facing page of the answer-book of the
                  candidate 001235 (Shri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) shows overwriting at three places. At
                  Sl. No. 2, original marks 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 a 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 for 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 with 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."
3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of malpractices 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 Hegde, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual if
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 malpractice 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 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 procedures adopted are in
flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. It is needless to mention that the General Manager of the Railways should personally conduct the
enquiry and find the persons who are responsible for this malpractice and take appropriate
disciplinary action against those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this
Court expeditiously.

5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.