Supreme Court of India
BISWA RAN.JAN SAHOO AND ORS. versus SUSHANTA KUMAR DLNDA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 8 May 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 570 · 1996 INSC 646
- Also cited as
- (1996) 5 SCC 365
- JT 1996 (6) SC 515
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 570, margin G
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 0.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 lo 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 :
pp. 570–571, margin G
"The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Roll No. 001078 (Umakanta Panigrahi) shows that though at SI. No. 3, in 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. 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 of the Answer Book of the v candidate 001235 (Sri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) show over writing at three places. At SI. 2, original mark 16 appears to have been chai\ged 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 Rajni 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."
p. 571, margin C
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 lo be followed by issuing notice to the selecteJ persons and hearing them? ll is true, as contended by Mr. Sanlosh 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-praclice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hercinbefore, the question emerges: whether lhe 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 procedure adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
pp. 571–572, margin H
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 :'gainst those persons and submit the result of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously_
p. 572, margin C
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No. costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 572, margin D