# Vijay Pal & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1595
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-16
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-pal-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-50146
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Sri Manish Pandey, Sri
Rajnish Kumar Rai

Civil Law - Service Matter - Appointment -
Rejection of Appointment - On the basis of
expert opinion, the candidature of the
petitioners was rejected with the remarks
'handwriting/thumb
impression
mismatch.' The decision of the Railways
was based on the expert opinion alone,
without affording an opportunity to the
petitioners or confronting them with the
material/opinion, i.e., the opinion of the
Government Examiner for Questionable
Documents (GEQD). Held - Had the
petitioners been afforded an opportunity,
they could, in their defense, have obtained
an opinion of another expert to confront
the Railways. The impugned order of
cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioners could not have been sustained
solely on the opinion of the handwriting
expert, which was obtained behind the
back
of
the
petitioners,
without
confronting them with the incriminating
material and without being supported by
any other evidence. The respondents'
action was not in conformity with the
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
respondents were directed to appoint the
petitioners to Group-D posts forthwith.
(Para 25, 33, 34, 36)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1595

13. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he came to be convicted for offences
under the Indian Penal Code alone. In that
event the disciplinary authority was bound
to consider the circumstances, role and the
conduct of the officer in commission of the
offence. For instance, as to whether the role
of the delinquent employee in commission
of the offence, was only of exhortation and
no more, the disciplinary authority in that
event would consider the circumstance of
the case while proposing to impose penalty
upon the officer. In a case of direct role in
commission of the crime the departmental
punishment would be severe.

14. Cases of corruption stand on
different footing there is not much for the
disciplinary authority to consider the
circumstances of the case involving the
delinquent employee. The involvement of
the petitioner in the commission of the
offence of corruption is direct being the
main kingpin.

15. We do not find merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a reasoned and speaking
order should have been passed by the
disciplinary authority.

16. Rule 14 in the case of conviction
of the government servant is required to
consider the ''circumstances of case' and
make such orders thereon. The Rule does
not mandate the authority to pass a
reasoned
and
speaking
order.
The
disciplinary authority is not required to sit
in appeal on the findings returned by the
trial court convicting the government
servant.

17.

The
impugned
order
of
punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority categorically records that the
explanation
of
the
petitioner
was
considered and the charge against the
petitioner in the trial was duly proved. That
is sufficient compliance of Rule 14 (i) of
Rules 1968. The learned Tribunal misread
the Rule 14 (i), requiring a reasoned and
speaking order, which is not mandated
under Rule 14 (i). The requirement of the
Rule
mandates
that
the
disciplinary
authority to ''consider the circumstances' of
the case i.e. trial Court judgement leading
to the conviction of the officer. The conduct
/ role which has led to the conviction of the
officer on a criminal charge has to be
considered. The disciplinary authority is
not required to enter into the merit /
evidence of the trial proceedings. It is not
the case of the petitioner that his role in the
act of corruption, during the discharge of
his duty and responsibility, was secondary
and not primary.

18. We do not find any merit in the
petition. The writ petition being devoid of
merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

19. No cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1595
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018

Vijay Pal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:s
Sri Shyamal Narain, Sri Ravi Prakash Bhatt

Counsel for the Respondents:
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Sri Manish Pandey, Sri
Rajnish Kumar Rai

Civil Law - Service Matter - Appointment -
Rejection of Appointment - On the basis of
expert opinion, the candidature of the
petitioners was rejected with the remarks
'handwriting/thumb
impression
mismatch.' The decision of the Railways
was based on the expert opinion alone,
without affording an opportunity to the
petitioners or confronting them with the
material/opinion, i.e., the opinion of the
Government Examiner for Questionable
Documents (GEQD). Held - Had the
petitioners been afforded an opportunity,
they could, in their defense, have obtained
an opinion of another expert to confront
the Railways. The impugned order of
cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioners could not have been sustained
solely on the opinion of the handwriting
expert, which was obtained behind the
back
of
the
petitioners,
without
confronting them with the incriminating
material and without being supported by
any other evidence. The respondents'
action was not in conformity with the
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
respondents were directed to appoint the
petitioners to Group-D posts forthwith.
(Para 25, 33, 34, 36)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajesh Kumar Vs U.O.I.& ors., 2014 (10) ADJ
672

2. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ
A No. 2813 of 2017

3. U.O.I.& ors. Vs Ran Vijay Singh & ors.,
Special Appeal No. 1045 of 2018, decided on 8
May 2019

4. Bhupendra Singh Vs U.O.I.& ors., Writ A No.
35333 of 2016, decided on 30.10.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shyamal Narain,
assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Bhatt,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
Manish Pandey, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.

2.

Petitioner/original
applicants,
herein, are challenging the judgment and
order dated 1 May 2018, passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal'),
whereby, their candidature for appointment
on Group-D post has been rejected.

3. Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Central Railway, Allahabad (for short
'RRC'), invited applications from eligible
candidates for recruitment to Group-D
posts, i.e., Khalasi, Helper, Trackman,
Peon, Parcel Porter, Safaiwala, etc. under
North Central Railway, vide advertisement
No. 01/2013, dated 27 July, 2013.

4. Petitioners appeared for the written
test and were declared successful. The
select list was published on the official
website of R.R.C. on 15 December 2015.
Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the
Physical
Examination
Test
(for
short
'P.E.T'.), held between 10 March 2015 to 14
March 2015, finally, 2609 candidates,
including the petitioners came to be declared
successful in the P.E.T. Thereafter, all the
candidates, including, petitioners were called
for verification of the documents and medical
examination. The select list published on the
website on 15 December 2015, was
accompanied by a note running in fourteen
paragraphs. The paragraph relevant for the
purposes of this case is extracted:

"During
various
stages
of
scrutiny and Document Verification 339
5 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1597
candidates found indulged in impersonation.
It is roved following extant procedure that
these candidates did not appeared inn the
written examination but some one else
appeared in place of these candidates or
handwriting/thumb
impression
of
these
candidates did not match in various
documents. Hence apart from cancellation of
candidature of the 339 candidates they are
being
debarred
from
all
Railways
examination through out Indian Railways as
well as criminal case may also be registered
against them on case to case basis."

5. The candidature of the petitioners
was
rejected
with
the
remarks
'handwriting/thumb impression mismatch'.

6. Aggrieved, petitioners approached
the Tribunal by filing original application,
being O.A. No. 1789 of 2015, Vijay Pal
and others versus Union of India and
others, which came to be dismissed by the
impugned order dated 1 May 2018.

7. During pendency of the original
application, an interim order dated 31
December 2015, was granted by the
Tribunal directing the respondents to keep
23 Group-D posts vacant. The operative
portion of the order is extracted:

"Having heard learned counsel for
both sides, it appears that the grounds for
rejection are stigmatic and therefore some
opportunity ought to have been given to the
applicants before rejecting their candidature
by the respondents. Therefore, prima facie, a
case for interim protection is made out.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to
keep 23 posts vacant till the next date.

If the facts are otherwise, the
respondents are at liberty to file stay
vacation application."

8. During pendency of the original
application, petitioners came to be issued
memorandum dated 23 January 2016,
stating therein, that though the candidature
of the petitioners was already cancelled,
however, petitioners were called upon by
the respondents to show cause as to why
they may not be debarred from all future
R.R.C./R.R.B. examinations, further, why
criminal case may not be instituted against
them for indulging in malpractice to
procure Government job by fraud and
misrepresentation.

9. The notice alleged that the
petitioners had resorted to impersonation,
further, it was alleged that there was
mismatch in the handwriting, and/or, thumb
impression of the candidates. In other
words, allegation against the petitioners
was that they have resorted, by securing the
services of someone else, in the written test
on their behalf. The allegation levelled in
the two memorandums of the same date is
extracted:

"I.
As
confirmed
by
the
Government
Examiner
of
Questioned
Documents,
Hand
writing
on
the
Application Form and that on answer sheet
(OMR)/verification sheets are of different
person (s). It has been established that the
candidate did not appear himself in the
written examination or PET examination
and rather somebody else appeared in the
same on his behalf, which is a case of
impersonation, a malpractice and an
offence.

II. As you are aware bio-metrics
attendance were obtained during each
phase of examination. It is to bring into
your notice that your thumb impression
during document verification did not match
with written and PET examination. It
1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
means someone else had appeared in
written
and
PET
examination
impersonating your candidature."

10. Petitioners filed their objections to
the
show
cause
notice/memorandum
denying the allegations of impersonation or
mismatch in handwriting, and/or, thumb
impression. The respondent-authority vide
order dated 31 March 2016, rejected the
objection stating that the reply submitted
by
the
petitioners
were
not
found
satisfactory. Consequently, petitioners were
debarred from taking future R.R.B./R.R.C.
examinations for life.

11. Aggrieved, petitioners through an
amendment application challenged the
memorandum dated 22 January 2016 and
the debarment order dated 31 March 2016.

12. The learned Tribunal, after
exchange of pleadings and hearing the
counsels for the respective parties, by the
impugned order, partly allowed the original
application
of
the
petitioners.
The
impugned orders to the extent debarring the
petitioners
from
future
R.R.B/R.R.C.
examinations for life was set aside. The
decision of the respondents, however,
cancelling the candidature of the petitioners
was not interfered with.

13. The operative portion of the
impugned order reads thus:

"24.
In
the
circumstances,
following the decision taken in the case of
Santosh Kumar Tiwari (supra) to this case,
we also come to the conclusion that from
the facts and circumstances of the case
based on the materials on record and as
discussed in para 22, the respondents have
not been able to establish the allegation of
impersonation against the applicants, since
the allegation comprised of only mismatch
of thumb impression or handwriting,
without any mismatch of the signature of
the applicants. In case of impersonation the
mismatch in signature would have been
detected also. The mismatch of signature
is not reported or detected for any of the
applicants in this case. However, there is
violation of the instructions of the
examination as per the advertisement No.
1/2023, for which there is mismatch of
handwriting or mismatch of thumb
impression for the applicants and these
mismatches have not been explained
satisfactorily as the explanation in one
applicant's explanation/reply at Annexure
A-10 of the OA reveals. In fact, there are
such violations as mentioned in the Suppl.
Affidavit filed by the applicants. Further,
no specific reason has been indicated in the
show cause notice or impugned order in
support of the allegation of impersonation
against any of the applicants. Hence,
taking into accounts the facts of the case,
we consider the cancellation of the
candidature of the applicants for the
advertisement No. 1/2013 to be just and
proper. But the decision of the respondents
to debar some of the applicants for all
examinations of RRCs/RRBs is not at all
justified based on the materials on record.
Accordingly, the impugned orders dated
31.03.2016, debarring the applicants from
all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is set aside
and quashed. However, we uphold the
decision/orders of the respondent No. 2 to
cancel the candidature of the applicants for
the
examination
pertaining
to
the
advertisement No. 1/2013. Respondent No.
2 is directed to modify the penal action
against the applicants accordingly. The
interim orders in the case to keep 23 posts
vacant in OA No. 1789/2015 and one post
vacant in OA No. 73/2016 are vacated and
if some of the applicants have appeared in
5 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1599
subsequent examinations provisionally by
virtue
of
the
interim
orders,
their
candidature shall be considered by the
respondent No. 2 as per the rules
applicable for the said examination in view
of the quashing of the punishment of
debarment
from
all
examinations
of
RRCs/RRBs as per this order.

25. For the OA No. 73/2016, the
allegation against the applicant is for
mismatch of handwriting as verified by the
GEQD like the case of the applicant No. 1
in the OA No. 1789/2015. The reply
furnished to the show cause notice and
enclosed
at
Annexure
SA-2
of
the
Supplementary
Affidavit
filed
b
the
applicant, does not give any convincing
explanation for mismatch of handwriting.
Hence, the finding as at para 24 will also
be applicable for the OA No. 73/2016.

26. Before we part with the case,
we notice that there appears to be no Rule
or Regulation laying down the procedure to
be followed by the RRC/RRB, in situations
where there are discrepancies for a
candidate like mismatch of handwriting or
thumb impression or signature etc. or
allegation
of
impersonation
in
the
examination, as no such Rule/Regulation
has been produced before us in this case.
The respondents may consider to put in
place an appropriate Rule/Regulation to
deal with such situations in a just and fair
manner as per the provision of law."

14. The coordinate Bench of this
Court, on filing of the writ petition by the
petitioners, passed an interim order dated
1 October 2018, staying the impugned
order of the Tribunal until further orders
and directed the respondents to keep 23
posts vacant and that would abide by the
out come of the writ petition. The
operative portion of the interim order is
extracted:

"Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, until further
orders,
the
impugned
order
date
01.05.2018
passed
by
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1789/2015
shall remain stayed and the respondents
are directed to keep 23 posts vacant."

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, on specific query, admits that
the respondent-Railways have not filed writ
petition challenging the order of the learned
Tribunal, insofar as, the impugned order
recorded a categorical finding with regard
to impersonation that '... the respondents
have not been able to establish the
allegation of impersonation against the
applicants, since the allegation comprised
of only mismatch of thumb impression or
handwriting without any mismatch of the
signature of the applicants. In case of
impersonation, the mismatch in signature
would have been detected also. The
mismatch of signature is not reported or
detected for any of the applicants in this
case...'

16. In the aforenoted backdrop, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that insofar as the allegation of
impersonation
levelled
against
the
petitioners was held unworthy of belief by
the learned Tribunal, rather, the allegation
of impersonation was specifically rejected.
The finding to that effect has attained
finality as the same has not been challenged
by the respondents.

17. It is, therefore, urged that after
returning a categorical finding with regard
to
impersonation
being
unbelievable,
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribunal committed an error in upholding
the decision of the respondents to cancel
the candidature of the petitioners at the
examination. In other words, it is submitted
that the petitioners had appeared for the
examination
and
are
entitled
to
appointment. In the circumstances, the
question
of
mismatch
of
handwriting/thumb impression would not
arise.

18. It is further submitted that the
categorical
finding
recorded
by
the
Tribunal that '... the respondents have not
been able to establish the allegation of
impersonation against the applicants...' is
contradictory for the reason that mismatch
of handwriting, or, thumb impression, is
possible in the event of impersonation.

19. It is further urged that it can safely
be said that all the petitioners stand totally
exonerated
of
the
main
charge
of
impersonation which was the substance and
basis
of
the
show
cause
notice/memorandum issued to them. It is
further submitted that the candidature of
the petitioners came to be cancelled prior to
the
issue
of
show
cause
notice/memorandum, accordingly, there is
an element of pre-determination of mind of
the
respondent-Railways
against
the
petitioners.
The
memorandum
was
confined to debarment from all future
examinations
for
resorting
to
impersonation.

20. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent, it is not being disputed that
the petitioners herein were not confronted
with the expert opinion or of the opinion of
the Government Examiner for Questionable
Documents (GEQD) . It is admitted that on
the allegations based on the opinion of the
expert, memorandum was served upon the
petitioners to show cause with regard to
their debarment and with not regarding the
cancellation of their candidature in the
examination. In other words, insofar as,
cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioners, was final as the memorandum
was confined with their future debarment in
RRB/RRC examinations. It is further stated
that after considering the reply of the
petitioners, the candidates came to be
debarred. The candidature of the petitioners
was
cancelled
due
to
the
acts
of
irregularities/omissions
noted
in
the
impugned order. It is, however, not denied
that material relied upon in non-suiting the
petitioners, i.e., the expert opinion was not
supplied to the petitioners, nor, filed before
this Court or the Tribunal. In other words,
the orders of cancellation of candidature
came to be passed behind the back of the
petitioners
while
cancelling
their
candidature,
thereafter,
upon
notice,
petitioners were debarred for all future
RRB examinations.

21. It is not the case of the respondentRailways
that
the
show
cause
notice/memorandum was supported by any
material,
including,
the
opinion
of
the
handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting
expert was not supplied in support of the
memorandum to justify the allegation of
mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on
the application form or on the subsequent papers
pertaining
to
Written
Examination/P.E.T.
undertaken by the petitioners. The entire exercise
was undertaken by the Railways behind the back
of the petitioners.

22. The question that requires
consideration
is
as
to
whether
the
respondents were justified on the available
materials on record to hold petitioners
guilty of impersonation, and/or, mismatch
of
handwriting/thumb
impression
on
various documents.
5 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1601

23. In Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of
India and others1, this Court observed
that handwriting expert opinion is at best an
opinion, which is not conclusive proof of
mismatch of handwriting or impersonation.
Expert opinion has been considered to be of
very
weak
nature,
which
requires
corroboration from other material facts
pertaining to the allegation.

24. This Court held as follows:

"Evidence of an expert is only
an opinion. Expert evidence is only a
piece of evidence and external evidence. It
has to be considered along with other
pieces of evidence. Which would be the
main
evidence
and
with
is
the
corroborative one depends upon the facts
of each case. An expert's opinion is
admissible to furnish the Court a scientific
opinion which is likely to be outside the
experience and knowledge of a Judge. This
kind of testimony, however, has been
considered to be of very weak nature and
expert is usually required to speak, not to
facts, but to opinions. It is quite often
surprising to see with what facility, and to
what extent, their views would be made to
correspond with the wishes and interests of
the parties who call them."

25. The decision of the respondent is
based on the expert opinion alone to
establish guilt of impersonation, and/or,
mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression
without
affording
opportunity
or
confronting
the
petitioners
with
the
material/opinion. Had it been so, the
petitioners in their defence could also have
obtained an opinion of the expert to
confront the Railways. The impugned order
of cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioners could not have been sustained
on the opinion of handwriting expert.

26. In Ran Vijay Singh and others
vs. Union of India and others2, this Court
in similar facts set aside the cancellation of
the candidature and their debarment for
three
years
from
appearing
in
any
examination of the Commission on the
strength of an expert opinion.

"23. In the facts of the present
case, despite allegation made in the notice
dated 5.8.2015 about thumb impression,
signatures and handwriting having not
tallied, the respondents have confined their
conclusion
to
the
opinion
of
the
handwriting expert. Such opinion cannot be
construed as being conclusive.

24. In the present case not only
the
petitioners
have
been
denied
appointment but they are also debarred
from appearing in any examination
conducted by the Commission for three
years. Such order of Commission is
clearly stigmatic in nature. The order
under
challenge
carries
civil
consequences also. Such order cannot be
sustained merely on the strength of
handwriting report, nature of which
remains that of an opinion, and cannot be
construed as conclusive.

25. The report of CFSL based
upon
handwriting
expert's
opinion,
moreover, has not been furnished to the
petitioners. Petitioners consequently had
no opportunity to controvert it."

27. The decision rendered in Ran
Vijay Singh (supra), was carried intra court
appeal in Union of India and others vs. Ran
Vijay Singh and others3, Division Bench
observed as follows:

"At this juncture, we would also
like to state that it is not the case of the
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant-respondents that the process of
selection suffers from mass-irregularity,
but of unfair practices adopted by certain
individuals.

Looking to this background also,
we are of the considered opinion that
while cancelling examination of the
respondent-petitioners
and
further
debarring him for three consecutive
examinations the appellant should have
supplied a copy of the opinion given by the
handwriting expert. Non-supply of that is
in violation of principles of natural
justice."

28. The aforenoted authorities came
to be followed by the Division Bench in
Bhupendra Singh vs. Union of India and
anothers4, the relevant part of the order is
extracted:

"In both Ran Vijay Singh and
Tulasi Ram Prajapati, the learned Judge
found
that
the
candidature
of
the
petitioners could not have been unilaterally
annulled
without
granting
them
an
opportunity to rebut the findings recorded
by the expert. These principles are clearly
attracted to the facts of the present case.
The submission of the learned Standing
Counsel that the order is not stigmatic and
there is no violation of Article 311 of the
Constitution do not merit consideration
since principles of natural justice would
clearly apply in all situations where a
person
is
visited
with
serious
civil
consequences. Once the name of the
petitioner stood included in the select list,
his removal from the same on the
allegation
of
impersonation
must
necessarily have been preceded by the
issuance of a notice or at least an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to
establish that the adverse material which
was relied upon by the respondents was
not liable to be accepted. It is well settled
that the opinion of an expert is not
conclusive and remains just that, namely,
an opinion."

29. The respondents in the given facts
of the case at hand were expected to
confront the petitioners with the material
relied upon against them, particularly,
when the petitioners were being debarred
from appearing in any further examination
conducted by the RRB/RRC and their
candidature
was
cancelled
for
the
examination
on
mismatch
of
handwriting/thumb impression.

30. The opinion of the expert was
required
to
have
been
viewed
and
considered with other materials available
on record. The learned Tribunal has
discarded the theory of impersonation setup
by the respondent-Railways, then in that
event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb
impression of the petitioners becomes
unsustainable, unless supported by any
other material or evidence that petitioners
have not appeared in the examination or
have not filled the application form in their
handwriting.

31. The respondent-Railways, in their
counter affidavit, have not denied that at all
stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test
and
P.E.T.,
thumb
impression
and
signatures of the candidates was taken and
the entire process was video-graphed. In
this backdrop, it cannot be said that though
the petitioners had appeared for the
examination, yet at the same time, there
was
mismatch
in
handwriting/thumb
impression.

32. It is not the case of the
respondents that the petitioners, herein, had
5 All. Madan Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1603
not
carried
the
relevant
documents,
including, identity card to the examination
centre or had not participated in the
P.E.T./Medical Examination.

33. In the circumstances, it cannot be
said in absence of any other material
available with the Railways, that it is a case
of
mismatch
in
handwriting/thumb
impression. The inference of the Railways
is based on an opinion without being
supported by any other material, i.e., the
petitioners had not appeared at different
stages of the selection process.

34. In service jurisprudence, though
Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge
is not required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, but on the principle of
preponderance of probability, based on
some
material
evidence
against
the
petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary
proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by
the Railways, that there was large scale
irregularities in the examination process,
only few candidates have been picked-up
and their selections cancelled merely on an
opinion obtained behind the back of the
petitioners
without
confronting
the
petitioners with the incriminating material.

35. The respondent's action otherwise
is not inconformity with the principles of
natural justice, accordingly, the impugned
order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic
cannot be sustained.

36. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. Respondents are directed to
appoint the petitioners on Group-D post
forthwith.

37. It is clarified that no other ground
or point was pressed by the counsels for the
respective parties.

38. No cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1603
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 29840 of 2010
And
Writ-A No. 18844 of 2010

Madan Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bhagwati Prasad, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service
Law
-Tubewell
Mechanic
-
Tubewell Mechanic Service Rules, 1951 -
Under Rule 9(B) of the 1951 Rules, the
minimum experience required for an ITI
holder is only 2 years. In the instant case,
as per the advertisement notification, the
minimum
qualification
prescribed
for
seeking appointment to the post of
Tubewell Mechanic was ITI with 5 years
of experience. Petitioner, an ITI certificate
holder,
submitted
an
experience
certificate of 7 years and 4 months, but it
was later discovered that only 3 years and
4 months of this experience were after
obtaining the ITI certificate. Petitioner's
selection was cancelled. The petitioner
challenged the cancellation, on the ground
that under the Tubewell Mechanic Service
Rules, 1951, only 2 years of experience
after ITI is required and not 5 years, and
that a government circular cannot change
the rules. Court held that the petitioner
had accepted the terms and conditions as
mentioned
in
the
advertisement
notification and could not now challenge
them after being found ineligible. (Para
19, 20, 21, 22)