# Desh Raj Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 8335 of 2022
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/desh-raj-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49823
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Law - Recruitment -
Public Examination - Constitution of India,
Articles 14, 16 - Selection for public
employment must be fair, impartial, and in
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with recruitment rules and the
mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
of
India.
Systematic
irregularities,
corruption,
and
malpractices vitiate the selection process,
violating the equality clause enshrined in
Articles 14 and 16. Any recruitment
process for public posts must be beyond
suspicion and malpractice. If the process
undermines
sanctity
and
fairness,
it
becomes
vitiated
and
ought
to
be
cancelled. (Para 46)

Civil Law - Service Law - Recruitment -
Irrigation Department Ziledars' Services
Rules,
1963
-
Ziledari
Qualifying
Examination,
2018
-
Petitioners
challenged
the
cancellation
of
the
examination results and the order to
conduct
a
fresh
examination
for
promotion to the post of Ziledar, arguing
that it would cause grave injustice to
those candidates who did not engage in
malpractice and qualified on merit. Held:
The three-member committee responsible
for the examination was found guilty of
large-scale
corruption
and
allowing
systematic
irregularities.
Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated, and an FIR
was
lodged
against
them.
Reports
indicated no way to separate candidates
involved in malpractice from the others,
with serious deficiencies undermining the
legitimacy of the examination. Therefore,
the government's decision to cancel the
entire examination was neither irrational
nor arbitrary. (Para 50)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 54,605. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1175
respondent-Jalaluddin Ansari against the
order of dismissal from service."

21. It is next submitted that the
petitioner in the present case was placed
under suspension on 22.1.2010. He
remained under suspension till passing of
the judgment by the tribunal on 1.7.2015.
He submits that in spite of direction of
the tribunal to reinstate the petitioner in
service,
the
petitioner
was
never
reinstated and he was kept out of service
and again on the second occasion, the
suspension order has been passed. The
petitioner is out of service since 2010. On
these grounds, it is prayed that the
request of the State for denovo enquiry
may be refused.

Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner is entitled to at least
50% back wages in the light of the
judgment of Supreme Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India and
another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010)4
SCC 491 and the judgment and order
passed by this court in Ambika Prasad
Srivastava vs. State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow and others [2004(22)
LCD 770] as also in the case of
Jalaluddin Ansari (supra).

22. On due consideration to the
submission advanced by the parties'
counsel, the judgment(s) referred to
herein above and considering the fact that
the petitioner is presently 64 years of age
and twice the orders have been passed
and
second
time,
while
passing
punishment order, again the mandatory
provision under Rules of 1999 have not
been
followed
by
the
enquiry
officer/enquiry committee as well as the
disciplinary
authority,
therefore,
the
request of the State to conduct denovo
enquiry from the stage of giving reply to
the charge sheet is refused.

23. The petition stands allowed. The
impugned orders dated 7.11.2016, passed
by Director (Administration), Medical &
Health Service, U.P. Lucknow and order
dated
15.11.2016,
passed
by
Chief
Medical
Officer,
Farrukhabad
are
quashed. The writ petitioner has already
attained the age of superannuation. As
observed above, it is not proper that it
may be opened for the respondent to
conduct denovo enquiry. It is directed
that the petitioner shall be paid all the
retiral due and 50% salary for the period
he remained dismissed from service till
the date of his superannuation within
three months of production of a copy of
this order.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-A No. 8335 of 2022
And
Writ-A No. 7022 of 2022

Desh Raj Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Deepak Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Service Law - Recruitment -
Public Examination - Constitution of India,
Articles 14, 16 - Selection for public
employment must be fair, impartial, and in
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with recruitment rules and the
mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
of
India.
Systematic
irregularities,
corruption,
and
malpractices vitiate the selection process,
violating the equality clause enshrined in
Articles 14 and 16. Any recruitment
process for public posts must be beyond
suspicion and malpractice. If the process
undermines
sanctity
and
fairness,
it
becomes
vitiated
and
ought
to
be
cancelled. (Para 46)

Civil Law - Service Law - Recruitment -
Irrigation Department Ziledars' Services
Rules,
1963
-
Ziledari
Qualifying
Examination,
2018
-
Petitioners
challenged
the
cancellation
of
the
examination results and the order to
conduct
a
fresh
examination
for
promotion to the post of Ziledar, arguing
that it would cause grave injustice to
those candidates who did not engage in
malpractice and qualified on merit. Held:
The three-member committee responsible
for the examination was found guilty of
large-scale
corruption
and
allowing
systematic
irregularities.
Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated, and an FIR
was
lodged
against
them.
Reports
indicated no way to separate candidates
involved in malpractice from the others,
with serious deficiencies undermining the
legitimacy of the examination. Therefore,
the government's decision to cancel the
entire examination was neither irrational
nor arbitrary. (Para 50)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sachin Kumar & ors. Vs Delhi Subordinate
Services: (2021) 4 SCC 631

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms Meenakshi
Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Kumar
Singh,
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri P.K. Khare, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State.

2. Present writ petitions have been
filed in respect of the result of "Ziledari
Qualifying Examination 2018" held as per
Irrigation Department Ziledars' Services
Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as
''Rules, 1963') declared on 26.11.2018 for
promotion from amongst confirmed Seench
Paryavekshak working in the Irrigation and
Water Resources Department fulfilling the
eligibility condition as prescribed under
Rule 6 of the Rules, 1963 i.e. one should be
confirmed
Seench
Paryavekshak
and
should have continuously worked as
Seench Paryavekshak, having 7 years
substantive services and should qualify the
examination as prescribed under Rule 15 of
the Rules, 1963.

3.

Vide
office
orders
dated
06.08.2018 and 24.10.2018 issued by the
Engineer-in-chief, Head of Department,
Irrigation and Water Resources, a three
members Examination Committee was
constituted to conduct "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018" as per Rules, 1963.
Result of the said examination was
declared on 26.11.2018.

4. Several complaints were received
regarding
gross
and
systematic
irregularities and large scale corruption
with
respect
to
said
Qualifying
Examination. Several reports in this regard
were published in newspapers and on social
media. The complaints, that were received,
were
primarily
with
respect
to
the
malpractice
and
corruption
in
the
examination such as demanding illegal
gratification and acceptance of bribe from
4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1177
various candidates in order to pass them in
the qualifying examination.

5.

Engineer-in-chief,
Head
of
Department,
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources considering these complaints
and reports wherein sanctity, fairness and
transparency of the examination process
became doubtful and a casualty, on
29.11.2018
constituted
an
enquiry
committee.

6. There were several complaints
against one of the members of the
examination committee, namely Raj Kumar
Gangwar, Deputy Revenue Officer, Kanpur
Division.

7. Enquiry committee submitted its
report on 24.01.2019 to the Engineer-inChief and the allegations regarding gross
irregularities, malpractices and corruption
in the "Ziledari Qualifying Examination,
2018" were found to be true. Sri Raj Kumar
Gangwar member of the examination
committee was placed under suspension.

8. It appears that another two
members committee headed by Sri Har
Prashad, Chief Engineer submitted its
report
to
the
Engineer-in-chief
on
15.02.2019
in
respect
of
gross
irregularities, malpractices and corruption
in conducting the "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018".

9. Considering these two enquiry
reports, which would make very sanctity
and fairness of the examination suspect,
result dated 26.11.2018 of the "Ziledari
Qualifying
Examination,
2018"
was
cancelled by the Engineer-in-chief, Head of
Department,
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources, Government of U.P. vide office
order dated 26.07.2019.

10. The Engineer-in-chief vide letter
dated 02.09.2019 submitted the enquiry
report dated 15.02.2019 to the State
Government recommending disciplinary
proceedings against the Chairman and
Members of the Examination Committee
who were responsible in conducting the
"Ziledari Qualifying Examination, 2018".

11. The State Government vide order
dated 19.02.2020 decided to suspend and
initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule
7 of
the U.P.
Government
Servant
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999
against Sri Rameshwar Kumar Mishra,
Chairman,
Ramraj
and
Raj
Kumar
Gangwar, members of the examination
committee regarding corruption, gross
irregularities which had adversely affected
the sanctity, validity and fairness of the
examination.

12. Several Seench Paryavekshaks
filed writ petition being Writ A No.1965 of
2021, Dharmendra Kumar & Ors vs State
of U.P. & Anr before this Court at
Allahabad with following prayers:

"(a) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondents to hold the
qualifying examination for promotion on
the post of Ziledar forthwith at the earliest
as provided in Rule 2 of the Appendix B of
the Service Rules, 1963.

(b) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus to any other relief
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case;

(c) Award costs of the writ
petition to the petitioner throughout."

13. The petitioners in the said writ
petition had made reference to the order
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 26.07.2019 whereby the result of the
"Ziledari Qualifying Examination, 2018"
was cancelled and, therefore, they prayed
for direction for conducting a fresh
examination.

14. Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 25.03.2021 disposed of the
said writ petition directing the respondents
to conduct the qualifying examination for
promotion on the post of Ziledar within
three months period, provided that there
would be no other impediment, and in case
petitioners
would
be
found
fit
for
promotion, necessary benefits may be
provided to them.

15. This said writ petition came to be
filed after the result of the Qualifying
Examination 2018 dated 26.11.2018 was
cancelled vide order dated 26.07.2019.

16. It is important to take note of the
fact that the petitioners in Writ A No.1965
of 2021 did not challenge the order dated
26.07.2019 cancelling the result of the
"Ziledari Qualifying Examination, 2018"
and they confined the prayer for holding
the examination for promotion.

17. Another writ petition being Writ
Petition No. 20603(SS) of 2020 was filed
by 31 candidates before this Court at
Lucknow Bench impugning the order dated
26.07.2019 cancelling the result of the
"Ziledari Qualifying Examination, 2018".
Despite the order dated 25.03.2021, which
was brought to the notice of this Court
during the course of hearing of the petition,
Coordinate Bench of this Court having
taken note of the order dated 25.03.2021
allowed
the
said
writ petition
vide
judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 on
the ground that the order dated 26.07.2019
cancelling the qualifying examination did
not record a finding that it was not possible
to distinguish the cases of tainted from
untainted and there was possibility that all
them would have got the benefit of wrongs.
It was held that the order dated 26.07.2019
was passed in ulterior disregard to
principles of natural justice and without
consideration
that
the
most
of
the
candidates did not get benefited of
malpractice adopted by the member of the
selection committee. Coordinate Bench of
this court allowed the writ petition and
issued a direction to the respondents to
reconsider the claim of the petitioners and
other selected candidates for grant of
promotion on the post of Ziledar after
holding a fresh full-fledged enquiry.
Operative part of the order would read as
under:-

"16. The writ petition succeeds
and is allowed with a direction to the
respondents to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner and other selected candidates for
the grant of promotion on the post of
Ziledar by holding a fresh full-fledged
enquiry to examination and merit of the
each and other candidates applied for
selection and record specific finding in
regard to influence/ mal-practice adopted
by one of the members of the selection
committee and in case the candidates are
found involved in such practice an
appropriate and speaking order be passed
after affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and other candidates of the
selection proceeding. The said exercise
shall be completed within four months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
17. Needless to say that in case the
petitioners are found to be genuine
candidates after passing the order as
directed by this Court, they shall be granted
promotion on the post of Ziledar immediate
4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1179
thereafter.
The
selection
proceeding
directed by this Court shall continue after
the exercise as directed by way of this
order."

18. In compliance of the said order
05.08.2021 passed by this Court, an
enquiry committee was constituted by the
Engineer-in-chief
vide
order
dated
12.01.2022 to segregate tainted and
untainted
candidates,
who
had
participated
in
the
qualifying
Examination, 2018. Sri Prabhat Kumar
Dubey Superintending Engineer was
appointed as Chairman of the said
committee.

19. A modification application was
moved by the Engineer-in-chief and Head
of Department, Irrigation and Water
Resources Department, Government of
U.P. in Writ A No.1965 of 2021 wherein
a direction was issued for holding
examination within a period of 3 months
bringing it to the notice of the Court the
judgment and order dated 05.08.2021
passed in Writ Petition No.20263(SS) of
2020.

20.

Result
of
the
aforesaid
modification application is not known,
however, in the counter affidavit, it is
said that the said application is still
pending.

21. Enquiry committee constituted
in pursuance of the judgment and order
dated
05.08.2021
passed
in
Writ
Petition No.20263(SS) of 2020 gave its
reports
dated
29.06.2022
and
08.07.2022 to the Engineer-in-Chief,
Head of Department, Irrigation and
Water
Resources
Department,
Government of U.P.

Relevant findings in the enquiry
report dated 29.06.2022 are as under:-

- 02 अभ्यर्थियों की र्लर्खत परीिा की अंकतार्लका
एिं उत्तर पुर्स्तका के प्रथम पृष्ठ में दजि अंकों में र्िन्नता िै,

- 77 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के प्रथम पृष्ठ पर
अंर्कत कुल प्राप्तांक एिं िल र्कये र्ये प्रश्नों के प्राप्तांको के योर् में र्िन्नता
थी,

- 20 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में पाया र्या र्क
प्रश्नों िेतु र्निािररत पूर्ाांक से अर्िक नबबर र्दये र्ये थे,

- 12 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में एक प्रश्न को
02 बार िल र्कया र्या और उन्िें मू्लयांर्कत र्कया र्या,

- 181 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में कई उत्तररत
प्रश्नों का मूलयांकन निीं र्कया र्या िै।

- 220 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के प्रश्नों में
प्राप्तांकों में िनात्मक अथिा ऋर्ात्मक पररितिन पाया र्या, जो एक
बिुतायत संख्या िै।"

22. The committee was of the opinion
that considering the mass and systematic
irregularities in the examination process no
segregation
of
tainted
and
untainted
candidates would be possible. Whole
sanctity and validity of the examination had
been violated, therefore, the result was
vitiated.

The conclusion arrived at by the
enquiry committee in its report dated
29.06.2022 reads as under:-

" र्नष्कर्ि : प्रमुख अर्ियन्ता कायािलय द्वारा उत्तीर्ि घोर्र्त
अभ्यार्थियों की सूची एिं र्जलेदारी अिि परीिा आयोजन सर्मर्त-2018
द्वारा तैयार र्कये र्ये। परीिाफल (र्लर्खत परीिा एिं सािात्कार की
अंकतार्लका) का र्मलान, सािात्कार की सदस्यिार अंकतार्लका एिं
परीिाफल र्मलान, र्लर्खत परीिा की अंकतार्लका एिं उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं
के प्रथम पृष्ठ पर अंर्कत र्कये र्ये अंको का र्मलान, उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के
प्रथम पृष्ठ पर अंर्कत कुल अंक एिं िल प्रश्नों के प्राप्तांकों के जो़ि
(टेबुलेशन) का र्मलान, पूर्ाांक से अर्िक प्राप्तांक िाले िल प्रश्न, दो बार
मूलयांर्कत प्रश्न में पायी र्यी िुर्टयों के आिार पर िुर्टयुक्त एिं िुर्टरर्ित
उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं िाले अभ्यर्थियों को िमशः TABLE-A एिं
TABLE-B में दशािया र्या िै। अनेक उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में मूलयांकन
िेतु अिशेर् ित प्रश्न (टबल संख्या-5) पाये र्ये िै। इस र्स्थर्त में सर्मर्त
र्कसी िी अर्न्तम र्नष्कर्ि पर पिुाँचने में असमथि िै।"
1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. In the meantime, a contempt
petition
being
Contempt
Application
No.804 of 2022 alleging non compliance of
the order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Writ
Petition No.20263(SS) of 2020 was filed. A
notice was issued in the said contempt
petition and under the pain of the contempt,
Engineer-in-chief in the Department of
Irrigation and Water Resources, Sri Ashok
Kumar Singh vide Order Nos.1500 and
1506 dated 21.07.2022 cancelled the order
dated 26.07.2019, which was already set
aside by this Court vide order dated
05.08.2021,
and
vide
order
dated
21.07.2022 declared the result of "Ziledari
Qualifying Examination, 2018".

24. A compliance affidavit came to be
filed
by
then
Engineer-in-chief
on
25.07.2022, which led to the dismissal of
the contempt application vide order dated
25.07.2022.

25. It is relevant to take note of the
fact that the State Government vide order
dated 16.02.2022 directed the Engineer-inchief to submit proposal for further
proceedings in reference to the judgment
and order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Writ
A No.20263(SS) of 2020.

26. The Engineer-in-Chief without
seeking any prior approval from the State
Government unauthorizedly and ignoring
the
direction
issued
by
the
State
Government vide order dated 16.02.2022
under the pain of the contempt, issued the
order dated 21.07.2022 for declaring the
result of untainted candidates. Engineer-inchief also did not consider the entire facts
and finding recorded in the enquiry report
dated 29.06.2022 and 08.07.2022 regarding
gross and systematic irregularities, and
malpractices
in
entire
process
of
examination including evaluation of the
answer sheets, thereby seriously affecting
sanctity, validity and fairness of the
examination.

27. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh retired
from service within 9 days from the date of
issuing
order
dated
21.07.2022.
Sri
Mushtaq Ahmad had taken over the charge
of the post of Engineer-in-chief on
01.08.2022.

28. The petitioner filed second
contempt
application
being
Contempt
No.2017 of 2022 (Saurabh Tripathi & Ors
vs Mushtaq Ahmad) arraying Sri Mushtaq
Ahmad as opposite party alleging non
compliance of the judgment and order
dated 05.08.2021. On 05.11.2022, the
contempt court passed the following order:-

"Heard
Shri
H.J.S.
Parihar,
Advocate assisted by Shri Shashank Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Sunil Bajpayee, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

Shri Sunil Bajpayee, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
placed
written
instruction,
dated
14.11.2022 and requested for four weeks
time to file affidavit of compliance.

The aforesaid prayer is hereby
rejected.

List this case on 28.11.2022.

In the meantime, opposite party
shall file affidavit of compliance, failing
which, opposite party shall appear in
person before this Court on the date fixed
for framing of charge."

29. Before passing the said order in
the contempt petition, the Government vide
orders dated 24.08.2022 and 09.09.2022
asked for explanation that under what
circumstances
result
of
qualifying
examination was declared illegally and the
4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1181
Government was not consulted before
issuing
the
order
dated
21.07.2022
declaring the result of the tainted and
ineligible candidates.

30. Considering the enquiry reports
dated 29.06.2022 and 08.07.2022, the
judgment and orders dated 05.08.2021
passed in Writ Petition No.20263(SS) of
2020 and 25.03.2021 passed in Writ A
No.1965 of 2021, impugned decision has
been taken vide order dated 25.11.2022
cancelling the result of "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018" and also holding fresh
qualifying examination for the purposes of
promotion to the post of Ziledars. Said
examination was to be held on 2025.12.2022, and the examination already
held on 21.10.2022 in compliance of the
order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Writ A
No.1965 of 2021 and declare the result of
both the examination on 16.01.2023.
However, because of the interim order, said
direction has not been carried out.

31. Record of the "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018" has been submitted
before this Court including the result and
the enquiry reports.

32. From perusal of the record it
would be evident that gross and systematic
llegality
and
irregularities
has
been
committed in the "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018", which had impacted
the very sanctity and fairness of the
examination and have resulted the vitiation
of the result of "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018". A brief summary of
the
illegalities
and
regularities
as
mentioned in the impugned order, is
reproduced as under:-

"उपरोक्त तथ्यों के र्ििेिन, परीिर् एिं पररशीलन से
र्िर्दत िै र्क र्जलेदारी अििकारी परीिा--2018 के सबपादन से लेकर
अब तक जो िी कायिार्ियां की र्यी िै, उससे स्पष्ट िै र्क मामले में
व्यापक स्तर पर अनेक र्बिीर प्रकृर्त की अर्नयर्मततायें की र्यी िै,
र्जनका र्ििरर् र्नबनित िै : -

(1) परीिा सर्मर्त द्वारा सर्बमर्लत सिी 490
अभ्यर्थियों का सािात्कार र्लया र्या, जबर्क इनमें से तत्समयं माि 318
अभ्यथी िी र्लर्खत परीिा में अििकारी न्यूनतम र्निािररत 50 प्रर्तशत अंक
िी प्राप्त कर सके थे अथाित परीिा सर्मर्त द्वारा 172 अनुतीर्ि अभ्यर्थियों
का र्नयमों के र्िपरीत सािात्कार र्लया र्या।

(२) प्रारर्बिक जॉच (मुख्। अर्ियन्ता (कार्मिक-7/8)
की अध्यिता में र्र्ठत 02 सदस्यीय सर्मर्त) में माि 76
र्शकायतकतािओं की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं की जॉच में िी अभ्यर्थियों के प्राप्त
योर् में अन्तर, उत्तर के मूलयांकन न र्कया जाना तथा एक िी प्रश्न के
अलर्-अलर् उत्तर अंर्कत िोने पर िी समान अंक र्दया जाना जैसी र्बिीर
अर्नयर्मततायें काररत र्कया जाना तथा परीिा पररर्ाम प्रिार्ित िोना जॉच
आख्या में पाया र्या था, र्जसके फलस्िरूप प्रमुख अर्ियन्ता एिं
र्ििार्ाध्यि की अध्यिता में र्र्ठत सर्मर्त द्वारा सििसबमर्त से घार्र्त
परीिा पररर्ाम को आदेश र्दनांक 26.07.2019 द्वारा र्नरस्त र्कया
र्या।

(3) परीिा में भ्रष्टाचार एिं र्िश्व र्लये जाने र्िर्यका
सोशल मीर्डया में िीर्डयो का िायरल िोना, समाचार पि में खबर
प्रकार्शत िोने से परीिा की शुर्चता एिं पारदर्शिता प्रर्तकूल रूप से
प्रिार्ित िुई।

(4) र्जलेदारी अििकारी परीिा-2018 की परीिा एिं
मूलयांकन में पायी र्यी र्बिीर अर्नयर्मतताओं के र्लए र्िर्नर्दिष्ट परीिा
सर्मर्त के अध्यि संर्ित दोनों सदस्यों के र्िरुद्ध शासन के उच्चतम स्तर से
एफ०आई०आर० दजि कराये जाने, उन्िें र्नलंर्बत कर अनुशासर्नक
कायिािी के आदेश/र्नदेश जारी र्कये र्ये िैं। सर्मर्त के अध्यि श्री रामेश्वर
कुमार र्मश्रा एिं सदस्य श्री रामराज के र्िरुद्ध, संर्स्थत अनुशासर्नक
कायिार्ियों में शासन द्वारा र्िन्न मत के आिार पर आरोप प्रमार्र्त पाते
िुए उनके अभ्यािेदन मांर्े र्ये िैं, जबर्क एक अन्य सदस्य श्री राजकुमार
र्ंर्िार के र्िरुद्ध मुख्यालय स्तर पर अऩुशासर्नक कायिािी प्रचर्लत िै।

(5) मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलािाबाद द्वारा ररट यार्चका
संख्या-1965 / 2021िमेन्र कुमार ि अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य ि अन्य
में पाररत आदेश र्दनांक 25.03.2021 में र्जलेदारी अििकारी परीिा को
पुनः कराये जाने के आदेश र्दये र्ये।

(6) मा० उच्च न्यायालय खण्डपीठ, लखनऊ द्वारा ररट
यार्चका संख्या-20263(एस.एस.)/2020 िेतराम ि अन्य में पाररत
आदेश र्दनांक 05.08.2021 के अनुपालन / अनुिम में र्ार्ठत
SEGREGATE कमेटी की जॉच ररपोटि में पाया र्या र्क :

- 02 अभ्यर्थियों की र्लर्खत परीिा की अंकतार्लका
एिं उत्तर पुर्स्तका के प्रथम पृष्ठ में दजि अंको में र्िन्नता िै,

- 77 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के प्रथम पृष्ठ पर
अंर्कत कुल प्राप्तांक एिं िल र्कये र्ये प्रश्नों के प्राप्तांको केटो में र्िन्नता
थी,
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- 20 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में पाया र्या र्क
प्रश्नों िेतु र्निािररत पूर्ाांक से अर्िक नबबर र्दये र्ये थे,

- 12 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में एक प्रश्न को
02 बार िल र्कया र्या और उन्िें मूलयांर्कत र्कया र्या,

- 181 अियिर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं में कई उत्तररत
प्रश्नों का मूलयांकन निीं र्कया र्या िै।

- 220 अभ्यर्थियों की उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के प्रश्नों में
प्राप्तांको में िनात्मक अथिा ऋृर्ात्मक पररितिन पाया र्या, जो एक
बिुतायत संख्या िै।

(7) परीिर् में यि तथ्य िी उद्घार्टत िुआ र्क परीिा
सर्मर्त द्वारा उत्तर पुर्स्तकाओं के मूलयांकन से पूिि कोई मॉडल अन्सर
(उत्तर कुंजी) निीं बनाया र्या था, र्जसके फलस्िरूप उत्तररत फल के
मूलयांकन िेतु कोई एकरूपता निीं रिी एिं र्लत उत्तरों पर िी नबबर र्दये
र्ये, एक िी प्रश्न के र्िन्न-र्िन्न उत्तर िोने के उपरान्त िी उन्िें पूरे अंक
र्दये र्ये।"

33. In the contempt application, copy
of the impugned order dated 25.11.2022
was filed with an affidavit. The contempt
Court vide order dated 28.11.2022 directed
the Chief Secretary of the State to file his
affidavit posting the matter for 16.12.2022.

34. In compliance of the said order,
personal affidavit of Chief Secretary was
filed
in
the
contempt
proceedings.
Contempt Court was not satisfied with the
personal affidavit of the Chief Secretary,
and posted the matter on 23.12.2022 for
framing of the charge. On 23.12.2022 the
contempt Court framed following charges:-

"8. In view above facts and
circumstances, following charge is framed
against the respondent/contemnor under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.

"Why the respondent/contemnor,
Mr.
Mushtaq
Ahmad,
Engineer-inChief/Head of Department of Irrigation and
Water Resources, U.P., Lucknow be not
punished for willfully flouting the order of
the writ Court dated 05.08.2021 passed in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 20263 of 2020, by
not giving promotion to the applicants on
the post of Ziledar, even after filing of the
affidavit of compliance dated 25.07.2022 in
earlier Contempt Application No. 804 of
2022; as also passing of the order dated
25.11.2022, by which, the order dated
21.07.2022 passed by the then Engineer-inChief of the Department (declaring the
result of 335 selected candidates in
pursuance of the order of the writ Court
dated 05.08.2021), has been recalled
despite the prayer having been made by the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
to comply the order of the writ Court on the
basis of respondent/contemnor's written
instructions dated 14.11.2022."

9. List this case on 23.01.2023
for order on sentence.

10.

On
the
next
date,
respondent/contemnor shall appear before
this
Court.
In
the
meantime,
respondent/contemnor may file response on
the point of sentence."

35.

Against
the
orders
dated
21.12.2023 and 23.12.2023, a contempt
appeal being Contempt Appeal No.1 of
2023 has been filed.

36. Vide order dated 23.01.2023 in
the Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2023 taking
note of the fact that writ petition arising out
of the order dated 25.11.2022 is pending
and whether the competent authority has
jurisdiction to nullify the previous order
passed on 21.07.2022 or not, is subject
matter of consideration in the writ
petition, and the matter has to be decided
on
its
merit,
the
Division
Bench
permitted the contempt proceedings to go
on. However, final order so passed should
not be acted upon without seeking leave
of the court.

37. Relevant part of the order dated
23.01.2023 would read as under:
4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1183

"Sri
Ramesh
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Shri Pankaj Khare and Shri
Prashant Singh Atal has submitted that the
learned Single Judge in the present case is
proceeding with the contempt proceedings
notwithstanding the fact that the act
complained of, is simultaneously subjudice before this Court in Writ Petition
No. 8335 of 2022. It is thus submitted that
in a situation where the pending writ
petition, if it entails the consequence for
dismissal,
the
initiation
of
contempt
proceedings arising out of the same order
would be a nullity and outside the domain
of the jurisdiction of the contempt court
and he has also placed reliance upon the
judgment reported in (2006) 5 SCC 399.

It is undisputed that the writ
petition arising out of the order dated
25.11.2022 is pending. As to whether the
competent authority has a jurisdiction to
nullify the previous order passed on
21.07.2022 or not is a subject matter of
consideration in the writ proceedings and
the matter has to be decided on its own
merit.

In the circumstances of the case,
we hereby permit the contempt proceedings
to go on, however, the final order so passed
may not be acted upon without seeking
leave of the Court.

We also expect the pending writ
petition to be brought to its logical
conclusion in the meantime.

The
State
Government
is
expected to co-operate in the adjudication
of writ proceedings and the alleged
contemnor in the contempt proceedings
without showing any indolence.

List this appeal after six weeks
alongwith
the
status
of
contempt
proceedings."

38. Considering the enquiry reports in
respect of the gross and systematic
irregularities, corruption and malpractices
in the examination, which had impacted the
very sanctity, validity and fairness of the
whole examination process which had led
the vitiation of the result, this Court vide
order
dated
06.04.2023
passed
the
following order:-

"1. Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms
Meenakshi
Singh,
Advocate
for
the
petitioners as well as Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Singh, learned Senior Advocate/Additional
Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P.K.
Khare, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for
respondents - State Authorities.

2. Mr. Anil Grag, Principal
Secretary, Irrigation Department, is present
to assist the Court. He submits that if this
Court permits for holding an integrated
examination for all the vacancies, which
are existing till today, the Department will
conduct the examination and publish its
result within a period of next 45 days. He
further submits that to ensure fairness and
integrity of the examination, a five
members committee, consisting engineerin-chief,
(project),
engineer-in-chief
(design & planning), chief engineer (leveli) and two superintending engineers would
be constituted, which would supervise the
entire process of the examination. It is
further
submitted
that
two
special
secretaries in the Department of Irrigation
would be appointed as special observers so
that the examination is conducted in a free,
fair and impartial manner, and there would
be no further litigation in respect of any
irregularity in examination. It is further
stated that the State is not siding with
anyone, but it is only concerned to ensure
the
fairness
and
integrity
of
the
examination.
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. It is stated that one more
petition (Writ - A No. 7022 of 2022), on
the same subject matter, is pending.

4. On the joint request, let this
matter be put up/listed tomorrow i.e.
07.04.2023 at 2.15 p.m. for further hearing
along with Writ - A No. 7022 of 2022."

39. Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Singh
Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that impugned
order dated 25.11.2022 whereby earlier
select list dated 21.07.2022 has been
cancelled, is illegal, arbitrary and is in
violation of the judgment and order dated
05.08.2021 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.20263(SS) of 2020.

40. It has been further submitted that
this Court has held in the judgment and
order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Writ
Petition
No.20263(SS)
of
2020
that
exercise of separating tainted and untainted
candidate was completed and, thereafter the
order
dated
21.07.2022
was
passed
declaring the result of untainted candidates
and on the basis of affidavit filed by the
then
Engineer-in-chief,
contempt
proceedings were dropped. Impugned order
is not only against the judgment and order
dated 05.08.2021 but it is also against the
order dated 25.07.2022 whereby the
contempt proceedings were dropped.

41. It has been further submitted that
fresh examination would result in grave
injustice to the candidates, who did not
indulge in any malpractice and could
qualify the examination on merit. Several
candidates would have crossed the age bar
and several candidates have got retired
since the result of the examination was
declared in the year 2019. He, therefore,
has submitted that the impugned order is
liable to the set aside and the petitions be
allowed.

42. On the other hand, Sri Ramesh
Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate and
Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State-respondents has submitted that Sri
Ashok Kumar Singh, then Engineer-inchief had no authority and power to pass
the order dated 21.07.2022, 10 days before
the date of his retirement to avoid contempt
proceedings.
Since,
the
order
dated
21.07.2022,
was
illegal
and
without
jurisdiction and against the enquiry reports,
which categorically mentioned the gross
and systematic irregularities, large scale
corruption and malpractice, such order is
not liable to be acted upon and, therefore,
the Government has taken a conscious
decision to conduct fresh examination
giving opportunity to all the eligible
candidates
to
participate
in
the
examination, in order to ensure that and the
selection is made totally on the basis of
merit without any blemish in conducting
the exam.

43. It has been, therefore, submitted
that no promotion has been made in
pursuance of the "Ziledari Qualifying
Examination, 2018", therefore, no-one is
prejudiced. It has been further submitted
that it is always open to the appointing
authority to cancel the examination, even if
the result is declared to make appointment
if it is found that the entire examination is
vitiated. In the present case, two successive
enquiry
reports
have
enlisted
gross
irregularities, malpractices and corruption
in conducting the examination whereby
impacting very sanctity, legality and
fairness of the examination which had
vitiatesd the result, such a result should not
be acted upon. Fairness and transparency of
the selection process is hallmark of the
4 All. Desh Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1185
governance and is requirement under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. If there is material which would
demonstrate
that
fairness
of
the
examination was violated and the result
was vitiated, it is not in the interest of
anyone to give effect to the said result.

44. It has been further submitted that
there are two divergent judgments of this
Court. This Court at Allahabad vide
judgment and order dated 25.03.2021
directed for holding fresh examination
whereas the order dated 05.08.2021 passed
by this Court at Lucknow in Writ Petition
No.20263(SS)
of
2020
directed
for
separating
the
tainted
and
untainted
candidates. The successive enquiry reports
would suggest that it would not be possible
to separate tainted and untainted candidates
looking at the gross and systematic
irregularities
and
corruption
in
the
examination. He, therefore, has submitted
that order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the
then Engineer-in-chief, who retired 9 days
thereafter, to avoid contempt proceedings,
being without jurisdiction cannot be
directed to be acted upon. This Court is
required to decide the case afresh on merit.
It has been submittd that the Government
has taken a correct decision in accordance
with constitutional mandate under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, the same should be allowed to be
acted upon.

45. I have considered the submissions
of learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioners and learned A.A.G. for the
State-respondents.

46. Selection for public employment
must be fair, impartial and in accordance
with the provisions of recruitment rules and
the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution
of
India.
If
there
are
systematic irregularities, corruption and
malpractices, selection process would get
vitiated as it would be in violation of the
equality clause as enshrined in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.

47. If the recruitment process has
resulted violation of sanctity and fairness of
the process itself, such a recruitment
process gets vitiated and ought to be
cancelled.
Irregularities
enlisted
hereinabove have been found in successive
enquiry
reports.
The
three
members
committee, which was responsible for
conducting the examination, have been
found to have indulged in large scale
corruption
and
allowed
systematic
irregularities and malpractices in the
examination.
Not
only
disciplinary
proceedings have been directed to be
initiated against the members of the
examination committee but the FIR has
also been directed to be lodged against
them.

48. In my view, result of such an
examination cannot be given effect to as it
would amount to putting premium on gross
and systematic irregularities, malpractices
and corruption committed in conducting the
examination. This Court should ensure that
the recruitment process is fair, impartial
and as per the mandate of statutory
prescription
and
equality
clause
as
enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Any recruitment
process to public post should be beyond
any
suspicion
and
any
malpractice.
Corruption in public employment would be
against the constitutional goal of Equality
of status and of opportunity, a goad
enshrined
in
the
preamble
of
the
Constitution. Recruitment has to be fair,
transparent and accountable, if there are
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irregularities
and
malpractices
and
illegality in the recruitment process, it
would undermine very legitimacy of the
recruitment process.

49. A fair and reasonable process of
selection to public posts subject to the
norm of equality of opportunity under
Article
16(1)
is
a
constitutional
requirement. A fair
and reasonable
process is a fundamental requirement of
Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment
to public employment stands vitiated as a
consequence
of
systemic
fraud
or
irregularities, the entire process becomes
illegitimate. Large scale irregularities
including those which have the effect of
denying
equal
access
to
similarly
circumstanced candidates would erode
credibility of the selection process.

50. In the present case, as the reports
of the committees would suggest that there
was no possibility to segregate the
candidates,
who
had
indulged
in
malpractices and deficiencies of serious
nature found in the enquiries which had
impacted the very legitimacy of the entire
examination process, therefore, decision of
the Government to cancel the entire
examination cannot be held to be irrational
or arbitrary.

51. The Supreme Court in the Case of
Sachin
Kumar
&
Ors
vs
Delhi
Subordinate Service : (2021) 4 SCC 631
in para 35 and 55 had held that a fair and
reasonable process of selection to posts
subject to the norm of equality of
opportunity under Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India is a constitutional
requirement.

Para 35 and 55 of the aforesaid
judgment would read as under:-

"35. In deciding this batch of
SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over
the last five decades, several decisions of
this Court have dealt with the fundamental
issue
of
when
the
process
of
an
examination can stand vitiated. Essentially,
the answer to the issue turns upon whether
the irregularities in the process have taken
place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the
sanctity of the process. There are cases
which border upon or cross over into the
domain of fraud as a result of which the
credibility and legitimacy of the process is
denuded. This constitutes one end of the
spectrum where the authority conducting
the examination or convening the selection
process comes to the conclusion that as a
result
of
supervening
event
or
circumstances, the process has lost its
legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel
it in its entirety. Where a decision along
those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a
fact-finding exercise into individual acts
involving the use of malpractices or unfair
means. Where a recourse to unfair means
has taken place on a systemic scale, it may
be difficult to segregate the tainted from the
untainted participants in the process.