Kiran And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under:

The petitioners before this Court are the regular employees of respondent No.2 ­Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Vide Memorandum dated 28th February, 2017 (Annexure A­7), the Managing Director of respondent No. 2­Corporation informed the Divisional Managers of said Corporation regarding selection of candidates for undergoing training in SAS­Holding of Preliminary Competitive Examination­2017. It was mentioned in the said Memorandum that respondent No. 2 had decided to fill up 09 vacant posts belonging to General Category of Section Officer (SAS) from amongst its employees. The same was to be done by conducting a preliminary competitive examination­2017 for selection of the candidates for undergoing training in SAS. It was mentioned in this Memorandum that applications were to be invited from eligible and interested employees of respondent No. 2 so as to reach the office of the Managing Director before 15th March, 2017 through the concerned head of the office on prescribed proforma. The syllabus and other conditions for undergoing training qua the said examination, which are available at Page No. 57 of the paper­book, inter alia, provided that all regular Class­III employees of HRTC possessing at least Bachelor Degree in any stream or its equivalent from a recognized University, were eligible to participate in the test and the preliminary examination was to consist of two papers, i.e., Paper­I: English & Hindi and Paper­II: Omnibus Accounts, FRs, SRs.,Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009.

This was followed by a Corrigendum dated 4th May, 2017 (Annexure A­9), which reads as under:

"CORRIGENDUM

In partial modification of letter of even No. dt. 28.02.2017, syllabus for conducting Preliminary examination for selection of Trainees under SAS may be read as under:

Paper­I

English & Hindi

:

Precis, letter writing, noting and drafting and other general questions to test the candidate's ability to writ correct English and Hindi.

Paper­II

Omnibus Accounts

:

Questions will be on Rules relating to Pay Fixation, Pension, T.A., LTC, Leave and GPF

Paper­III

FRs.,SRs., Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules

:

(a) Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (excluding rules covered in Paper­II). (b) Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009

Note1: Standard of English Paper will be similar to that of the Decree Examination of any recognized Indian University and standard of Hindi Paper shall be similar to that of 10+2 examination or equivalent of recognized University or Board of School Education.

Note.2: Each Paper shall carry 150 marks and will be of three hours duration.

Note.3:The medium of examination shall be English except for Paper­I for which the medium of examination shall be both English and Hindi Part­wise.

(i) The minimum pass marks shall be 40% in each paper and 45 % in aggregate.

(ii) The final selection shall be made strictly in order of merit.

Petitioners being eligible to participate in the preliminary competitive examination, submitted their applications. The examination was conducted by the respondent­Corporation on 8th and 9th July, 2017 with the assistance of Staff of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission in the Examination Hall of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. List of selected candidates on the basis of merit in respect of SAS preliminary examination conducted by respondent No. 2 on 8th and 9th July, 2017, was declared on 22.08.2017 and the names of petitioners figured in the said list.

This was followed by issuance of Communication dated 26th August, 2017 (Annexure A­11) by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 on the subject "Sponsoring candidates for SAS training at HIPA", which reads as under:

"...This is with reference to the telephonic discussion held with you on 25.08.2017 in the matter cited as subject.

In this connection, it is submitted that Himachal Road Transport Corporation has conducted SAS Preliminary Competitive Examination of HRTC candidates and selected 09 candidates for SAS Training.

You are therefore, requested to provide the necessary schedule for imparting training to the selected candidates at HIPA alongwith details of charges to be deposited by HRTC on account of said training. The schedule may please be confirmed to this office at the earliest so that the selected candidates can be deployed for the SAS training accordingly."

Vide Communication dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure A­ 12), respondent No. 3 intimated respondent No. 2 as under:

"....Kindly refer to your letter No. 110/9E­224­II­SAS Training (A)­Vol­III dated 26th August, 2017 on the subject cited above. It is to inform you that at present a batch of 30 candidates is undergoing SAS Part­II Training at this Institute which will be conducted on 21.10.2017. Further, the H.P. Public Service Commission has also started the process to select the HPSAS candidates and this batch is also likely to be sponsored by the Finance Department for training within two­three months. Therefore, this Institute will certainly impart the SAS Part­I Training to the candidates selected by the HRTC alongwith the SAS candidates selected in the H.P. Public Service Commission.

In addition to above, it is also pertinent to intimate that the H.P. Public Service Commission has expressed its inability to conduct the examination for the candidates of any Board/Corporation or Autonomous Bodies. Moreover, this Institute conducts Departmental Examination of State Government's employees. Hence, in the meanwhile, it may also be ensured as to who will conduct the SAS Part­I and Part­II examination for the candidates selected by the HRTC and inform to this Institute enabling us to take further necessary action accordingly in the matter."

Thereafter, respondent No. 1 vide Communication dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure A­13) on the subject "Permission to impart training to the SAS Candidates selected by HRTC" informed respondent No. 2 as under:

"Subject: Permission to impart training to the SAS Candidates selected by HRTC.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter No. HO:9E­529/15­(Admn.), Vol. VI dated 10.05.2018 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter was referred to the Department of Personnel who have observed as under:­

"Examined. Department of Personnel concurs in the proposal of the HRTC for conducting post SAS training examination i.e., Part­I & II through Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission subject to completion of all codal formalities.

Besides, the direction as conveyed vide this Department letter of even number dated 16.01.2018 regarding filling up of SAS post in the ratio of 50:50 be kept in view in future and only 9 posts may be recommended for training examination which has been initially advertised as per roster.

You are requested to take further necessary action in the matter under intimation to this department."

As thereafter nothing happened and the names of the petitioners were not sponsored for the purpose of training, they filed an Original Application No. 4962 of 2018 before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, praying for a direction to sponsor the applicants for training of SAS which was to be held by respondent No. 3 as well as for the relief that after successful training of the applicants, respondent No. 2 be directed to promote them against the posts of Section Officer (SAS) with all consequential benefits.

During the pendency of this Original Application, respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit/short reply dated 29 th August, 2018, in compliance to the directions passed by the learned Tribunal on 27th August, 2018 (Annexure A­16). Relevant portion of the affidavit filed under the signatures of Regional Manager (Legal), HRTC reads as under:

"....After the declaration of the result, one of the candidates namely Sh. Chaman Lal, Conductor, who could not pass the said examination, filed OA No. 4999/2017 on 17.09.2017 in the Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal for quashing the result declared by HRTC and for considering him as passed candidate against OBC category. He has also requested the Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal that HRTC should be directed to conduct the SAS examination as per the rules framed by the Government in respect of the posts of Treasury, Accounts and Lotteries Department, H.P. Since there is no provision of reservation for OBC candidates in promotion, hence, reply is being filed accordingly. Moreover, the said candidate had also filed OA No. 883/2015 in the Hon'ble HP Administrative Tribunal for providing reservation to OBC category candidates in SAS examination, however, the same is also pending for decision whereas the reply to the said OA stands filed by HRTC. It is pertinent to mention here that there are no orders of the Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal against the above examination."

On 14.09.2018, in the said Original Application, learned Tribunal, in the interregnum, allowed the prayer of the petitioners to nominate them for Part­I of training of H.P. State Finance & Accounts Services latest by 17th September, 2018.

Thereafter, an office order was issued by the Chairman of respondent No. 2­cum­Transport Minister Himachal Road Transport Corporation on 17.09.2018 (Annexure A­19), which reads as under:

"..In compliance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Chairman, Himachal Road Transport Corporation­cum­Transport Minister, Himachal Pradesh, the ongoing process of preliminary competitive examination for the selection of Section Officer (SAS)­2017 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. Further process will be started, afresh, in the due course of law and in due course of time."

Inquiry report which led to the issuance of office order dated 17.09.2018 is appended with the petition as Annexure A­20.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 5706 of 2018, primarily praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) That the impugned inquiry report dated 13.09.2018, Annexure A­20, as also impugned order dated 17.09.2018, Annexure A­ 19, cancelling the preliminary competitive examination for the selection of Section Officer (SAS)­2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to sponsor the applicants for training of SAS, to be conducted by respondent No. 3 with effect from 24.09.2018, for 30 successful HPSAS candidates, (whose result was declared vide Press Note dated 16.8.2018, Annexure A­15 and for whom training programme was already indicated by respondent No. 3 in the training programme schedule, Annexure A­14 at Sr. No. 3 as published by respondent No. 3), who are being sponsored by HP Finance Department for training to respondent No. 3 shortly;

(iii) That the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to impart SAS training to the applicants alongwith HPSAS candidates being sponsored for such training by HP Finance Department as per selection made by HPPSC;

(iv) That after successful training of SAS by the applicants, the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to promote and post the applicants against the posts of Section Officer (SAS) in respondent Corporation, for which selection process was initiated by respondent No. 2 vide advertisement dated 28.2.2017, Annexure A­7, with all consequential benefit(s);"

After abolition of learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, this Original Application stands transferred to this Court.

Record demonstrates that no formal reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, but said respondent has filed short reply/affidavits in terms of the directions passed by the erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal from time to time when the matter was pending before the said Tribunal. Record further demonstrates that despite opportunities having been granted to respondents No. 1 and 3, as no reply was filed, right of the said respondents to file reply was struck off by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.2018.

Be that as it may, the stand as reflected in the short reply/responses which have been filed by respondent No. 2, is that no indefeasible right accrued upon the petitioners by participating in the examination in issue and it was always open for respondent No. 2 not to send the candidates for further training. It is further the stand of said respondent that the examination conducted has been rejected after a detailed inquiry, which contained valid reasons for cancellation of the examination, which also depicted the conscious application of mind on behalf of the said respondent. The decision was taken by respondent No. 2 on the basis of report containing the proof in support of allegations of malpractice committed. It is further stand of the said respondent that none of the petitioners were eligible to participate in the process in accordance with applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The advertisement in issue, as per the said respondent, was in variance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the irregularities, which stood committed in the completion of process, rendered the same unacceptable and there was a possibility that undue benefit might have had accrued in favour of the applicants.

It is further the stand of said respondent that petitioner No. 1 was the P.A. of the then Managing Director and had easy access to the confidential part of the entire selection process and petitioner No. 2 was the DA and he also had easy access to the confidential process of selection. On these basis, the respondent No. 2 justifies its act of cancelling the process of selection.

In the rejoinder, which stands filed to the short reply, the petitioners have reiterated their stand taken in the petition. The stand of respondent No. 2 that petitioners No. 1 and 2 had easy access to the selection process has also been refuted in detail in the preliminary submissions as are contained in the rejoinder. It stands clarified in the rejoinder that the process for initial selection for undergoing training for the post in issue was initiated vide memorandum dated 28.02.2017.

Whereas petitioner No. 1 had proceeded on leave w.e.f. 06.03.2017 and reported back for duty only on 01.04.2017. Thereafter, she was shifted from HRTC Headquarter Shimla and joined at Bus Stand Management Authority, Tutikandi Headquarter on 06.04.2017. As per the petitioners, the averments made in the reply that petitioner No. 1 had easy access to the confidential part of entire selection process was factually incorrect as said petitioner was never posted at HRTC Headquarter as PA of the Managing Director, as alleged in the reply. With regard to petitioner No. 2, it stood mentioned in the rejoinder that said petitioner never dealt with the confidential process of the selection in question and the allegations were malicious. There is no rebuttal on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the said stand so taken by the petitioners in the rejoinder.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case.

The issuance of advertisement and the conducting of examination in issue is an admitted fact. The grievance of the petitioners initially arose at the stage when as per them, their names were not being sponsored for no valid reason for training of SAS, which was to be held by respondent No. 3. They filed an Original Application No. 4962 of 2018 before the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction to the respondents to sponsor them for training of SAS to be held by respondent No. 3 as well as for the relief that after successful training of the applicants, respondent No. 2 be directed to promote them against the posts of Section Officer (SAS) with all consequential benefits. In the course of pendency of this Original Application, the Tribunal was informed by respondent No. 2 that the Chairman of respondent No. 2 had cancelled the ongoing process of preliminary competitive examination for the selection of Section Officer (SAS)­ 2017, which was done on the basis of an inquiry report appended with the petition as Annexure A­20. This led to the filing of the present lis.

At this stage, I will refer to the inquiry report, which is the principal bone of contention between the parties. A perusal of the inquiry report (Annexure A­20) demonstrates that a Committee was constituted by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 vide office order dated 01.09.2018 to inquire into the matter regarding selection of nine candidates to SAS Part­I and II training in HRTC.

Now, few things which also need some reference at this stage itself are that the inquiry report is dated 13.09.2018, whereas the Committee to undertake the inquiry was constituted by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2, as already mentioned above, on 01.09.2018. In other words, the Committee submitted its report within 13 days as from the date of its constitution.

The office order constituting the Committee for the purpose of holding the inquiry has not been appended by respondent No. 2 either with the short reply filed by it or with the affidavit filed. Least to say that the response filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the petition is extremely general in nature and the allegations which stood made in the petition have not been refuted therein para­wise and point­wise.

Be that as it may, the Court to satisfy its judicial conscious, directed the respondents to make available the original record of the case. Record demonstrates that vide office order dated 23.08.2018, Managing Director of respondent No. 2 constituted a Committee of Executive Director, HRTC, who was to be the Chairman of the same and Financial Advisor & CAO as well as Regional Manager (Legal) to inquire into the matter regarding selection of nine candidates to SAS Part­I and Part­II training. The Committee was to submit its report within 30 days.

What led to the constitution of said Committee is not borne out from the office order.

This was followed by issuance of office order dated 01.09.2018, which reads as under:­

"Office Order

In partial modification of this order of even number dated 23.08.2018, the Committee is re­ constituted to enquire into the matter regarding selection of nine candidates to SAS Part­I and II training is as under:

Dr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma Executive Director (HRTC) Chairman

Er. H. K. Gupta Chief General Manager Member

Sh. Rajesh Chauhan Divisional Manager (Admn­II) Member

The above committee will look into the issue from the initial stage and ascertain that there is no violation of R & P Rules and instructions of State Govt. The Committee will submit the report before 14.09.2018 as the next hearing in OA No. 4962 of 2018 is fixed for 14.09.2018 and this report is required to be submitted before this date in Hon'ble HPAT."

There is on record communication dated 10th May, 2018, issued by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2, addressed to Additional Chief Secretary (Transport), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as Transport Minister­cum­Chairman of respondent No. 2, contents whereof in extensio are being quoted hereinbelow:

" ...Subject: Permission to impart training to the SAS Candidates selected by HRTC.

Please refer to your office letter No. TPT­B (1)­2/2012, dated 16.01.2018 in the matter cited as subject.

In this regard, it is submitted that the process for conducting SAS Preliminary Examination has already been completed by HRTC in the month of August, 2017 when the result of the said examination was declared in which nine candidates were selected against the nine posts of Section Officer (SAS) in HRTC. The detailed facts about the conduct of above examination are given below.

During the year 2016, the Service Committee accorded its approval for filling up the vacant posts of Section Officers (SAS). On the recommendation of the Service Committee, the BOD of HRTC also accorded its approval on 30.06.2016 vide item No. 136.15 for filling up the vacant posts of Section Officers (SAS) by conducting preliminary examination for selection of candidates through HP Public Service Commission and then imparting training through HIPA.

Accordingly, the matter was taken up with HIPA and HP Public Service Commission to conduct the preliminary examination for HRTC but Director, HIPA intimated that the preliminary examination is conducted by HP Public Service Commission. On the other hand, the Principal Secretary (Transport) to the GoHP vide letter No. TPT­B(1)­2/2012, dated 05.09.2016 intimated that the HPPSC had shown its inability to conduct the said examination for HRTC due to different recruitment rules of HRTC and the Government. After this, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors which accorded approval for conducting the preliminary examination at the level of HRTC instead of HPPSC and the BOD allowed to conduct the examination at the level of HRTC instead of HPPSC in its 138th meeting held on 16.02.2017.

As per the approval of the BOD, a committee was constituted by MD, HRTC under the chairmanship of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, HRTC vide office order dated 20.02.2017 to complete the entire process regarding conduct of the preliminary examination at the level of HRTC. HRTC advertised nine vacant posts, all pertaining to general category, on 28.02.2017, as per the recommendations of the committee constituted under the Chairmanship of FA & CAO, HRTC for inviting applications from all regular Class­III employees of HRTC having Bachelor degree in any stream. The advertisement was circulated among all the Units/offices of HRTC and the same was also uploaded on the website of HRTC. A total of 83 applications were received with reference to the advertisement. After screening of the applications, th SAS Preliminary examination was conducted by HRTC on 8th and 9th July, 2017 in the Examination Hall of HP Public Service Commission with the assistance of HPPSC staff. Out of 83 applicants, only 56 applicants appeared in the above examination. The final result was declared on 22.08.2017 in which 11 candidates passed the said examination but keeping in view the fact that only nine vacant posts were there as mentioned in the advertisement also, only nine candidates were declared as selected on the basis of the merit of written examination/marks obtained. After the declaration of the result, one of the candidates namely Sh. Chaman Lal, Conductor, who could not pass the said examination, filed OA No. 4999/2017 on 17.09.2017 in the Hon'n;e HP Administrative Tribunal for quashing the result declared by HRTC and for considering him as passed candidate against OBC category. He has also requested the Hon'ble HP Administrative Tribunal that HRTC should be directed to conduct the SAS examination as per the rules framed by the Government in respect of the posts of Treasury, Accounts and Lotteries Department, HP. Since there is no provision of reservation for OBC candidates in promotion, hence, reply is being filed accordingly. Moreover, the said candidate had also filed OA No. 883/2015 in the Hon'ble HP Administrative Tribunal for providing reservation to OBC category candidates in SAS examination, however, the same is also pending for decision in spite of the fact that the reply to the said OA stands filed by HRTC. It is pertinent to mention here that there are no orders of the Hon'ble HP Administrative Tribunal against the above examination.

It is also pertinent to mention here that after the declaration of the result of the preliminary examination, the BOD of HRTC vide proceedings which have been approved/signed by circulation by only 07 out of total 16 members of the BOD has approved to impart training to all 11 candidates who had passed the said examination against the posts which have become vacant after the advertisement. However, the proposal of the BOD has not been approved by the Service Committee as no meeting of the same was convened after the decision of the BOD due to Vidhan Sabha elections. Further, initially only 9 posts had been advertised as per roster.

After declaration of the result, the matter was taken up with Director, HP Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) to impart training to HRTC candidates. HIPA agreed to impart training alongwith Govt. candidates to be selected by HPPSC separately and also intimated that HPPSC had shown inability to conduct the post training exams, i.e., Part­I and II for the candidates of Boards and Corporation. They advised to ensure as to who will conduct the exams after the training. Again on 16.10.2017, HPPSC was requested to conduct the exams after training in view of the instructions of the Govt. issued vide letter No. Per(AP.B) A(3)­2/2014, dated 16.09.2017 (copy enclosed) vide which they had been directed to conduct the examinations for Boards and Corporation candidates also. The HPPSC vide letter No. 4­4/2016­PSC(SET)­SAS(HPSEB), dated 24.11.2017 intimated that the matter had been referred to the Govt. for clarification and exam could not be conducted till decision of the Govt. or issuance of Notification under Article 321 of the Constitution for conducting exams of the Board and Corporation candidates also.

After this, the matter was taken up with the Government vide letter No.HRTC:HQ­ 9E(Admn.­G)­18/2017­192, dated 02.12.2017 to allow training through some private agency, but in view of the decision of the Government, the Pr. Secretary (Transport) directed to stop the process in view of the letter No. Per(AP.B)B(15)­ 6/2012, dated 27.12.2017 whereby all ongoing recruitment processes had been put on halt. But, vide letter No. Per(AP.B)B(15)­6/2012, dated 05.02.2018 (copy enclosed), the Personnel Department, GoHP has again intimated that the decision regarding ongoing recruitment processes will be taken by the concerned Administrative Department after examining all aspects and after obtaining approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister at their level.

It is, therefore, requested to allow to impart SAS training to the candidates selected by HRTC at HIPA. As regards post training exams, a letter dated 16.04.2018 has also been written to the Registrar, HP University, Shimla to give consent for conducting SAS post training exams (Part­I and II). However, the reply from the Registrar, HPU is still awaited. Submitted for perusal and further orders/approval, please."

This communication, which is dated 10th May, 2018, inter alia, contains that in terms of the approval of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2­Corporation, a Committee was constituted by the Managing Director under the chairmanship of Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, HRTC vide office order dated 20.02.2017 to complete the process regarding conduct of the preliminary examination at the level of HRTC. Advertisement was issued on 28.02.2017 in terms of the recommendations of the Committee for inviting applications from all regular Class­III employees of HRTC, which were having Bachelor degree in any stream. The advertisement was circulated amongst all Units/offices of HRTC and was also uploaded on the website of HRTC and total 83 applications were received for the same. Screening test was conducted on 8th and 9th July, 2017 with the assistance of HPPSC. Out of 83 applicants, only 56 appeared in the examination and final result was declared on 22.08.2017, in which, 11 candidates were declared pass, but keeping in view the fact that only nine posts were available, the result of nine candidates was declared on the basis of merit. After declaration of result, one of the candidates, namely, Sh. Chaman Lal, who could not pass the examination, filed Original Application No. 4999/2017 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for quashing the said result and for considering him as a pass candidate against OBC category.

As there was no provision of reservation for OBC candidates for promotion, reply to this effect was being filed by the HRTC. It is further borne out from this communication that after declaration of the result of preliminary examination, the Board of Directors of HRTC vide proceedings which were approved/signed by circulation, had approved to impart training to 11 candidates who had passed the examination, however, the proposal was not approved by the Service Committee as meeting of the same was not convened by the BOD due to Vidhan Sabha elections. After declaration of result, the matter was taken up with Director, Himachal Pradesh Institute of Public Administration, who accorded permission to impart training to the candidates with Government candidates, but it also intimated that Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission had expressed its inability to conduct the post training exams, i.e., Part­I and Part­II for the candidates of Board and Corporations. On 16.10.2017, the Pubic Service Commission was requested to conduct the examination after training, in terms of the instructions of the Government dated 16.09.2017. Vide communication dated 24.11.2017, the Public Service Commission intimated that the matter had been referred to the Government for clarification. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Government on 02.12.2017 to allow training through private agency, but in view of the decision of the Government, the Principal Secretary (Transport) directed to stop the process in terms of letter dated 27.12.2017, whereby all ongoing recruitment processes were put to halt. A request was made by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2 to allow to impart SAS training to the candidates selected by HRTC at HIPA.

As already mentioned above, this communication is dated 10th May, 2018 and the change of heart thereafter took place, which resulted in issuance of communication dated 23.08.2018, vide which a Committee was constituted by the Managing Director itself to look into the selection of the candidates in issue. This change of heart, as per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, was on account of the Change of Guard which happened on account of the assembly elections held in the interregnum.

It is pertinent to mention that in communication dated 10th May, 2019, there was no allegation of any kind mentioned therein with regard to any illegality, irregularity or impropriety committed in the entire process of examination. Now, as I have already mentioned above, the Committee in issue, to inquire into the matter was initially constituted on 23.08.2018 and re­constituted on 01.09.2018. The Committee submitted its report on 13th September, 2018.

During the hearing of this case, on 27.11.2019, this Court passed the following order:

"As per report of the Registry, replies have not been filed by respondents No. 1 and 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that their replies are not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and the case can be heard in the absence of their replies also.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that otherwise also, respondents No. 1 and 3 have adopted the reply so filed by respondent No. 2, as is evident from order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal.

Heard in part. List for continuation on 4th December, 2019. Respondent­Corporation to produce the relevant record of the case on the said date.

In compliance thereof, the original record of the case has been produced by the Corporation before this Court. The reason as to why I have quoted the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2019 is that the Court ordered the Corporation to produce "the relevant record of the case". The record which has been produced before this Court, therefore, is deemed to be by this Court as "the relevant record of the case". I have carefully perused the record produced by the respondent­Corporation, which comprised of three Volumes. None of these Volumes contains the record of the inquiry which was held by the Committee so constituted by respondent No. 2. In other words, this Court has not been provided with any record by respondent No. 2 as to how the inquiry was conducted by the Committee pursuant to its constitution by the Managing Director of respondent No. 2. A careful perusal of the inquiry report reveals that it is not mentioned therein that on what dates the Committee met, what record was perused by it and from what sources that record was called for by it, whether in the course of inquiry, it associated any members against whom the allegations were levelled with regard to the setting up of papers etc. and whether the persons who were directly to be affected by the outcome of the inquiry were associated therewith and were heard before submission of the report. In fact, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, informed that the petitioners were not associated by the Inquiry Committee and this entire process was undertaken at their back. This fact was not disputed during the course of arguments by the respondents.

As this Court, prima facie, is satisfied that the entire gamut of the constitution of the Committee and holding of inquiry was undertaken by respondent­Corporation with a predetermined mind of setting at naught the process of selection which was undertaken by respondent No. 2 itself, this Court is not even going into the findings which so stand returned in the inquiry report, as this Court is convinced that the inquiry was nothing but a sham. The chronological happening of events, as they have taken place in this case, is a clear indicator that up to May, 2018, respondent No. 2 did not find any illegality or irregularity etc. in the process which was undertaken by it in the selection of candidates for SAS examination. It is thereafter that something happened which led to the constitution of the Committee and submission of report thereof led to the cancellation of the process by the Transport Minister­ cum­Chairman of respondent No. 2. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that there is nothing on record of respondent No. 2 as to how the inquiry was held by the Committee. Record does not demonstrate that the petitioners who were to be directly affected by the outcome of the inquiry report, were associated in the process or were given opportunity to put forth their version. Inquiry report does not demonstrate that persons setting the paper were associated and examined or contemporaneous record was sought in this regard from any other institution like Himachal Pradesh University. The haste in which the Committee submitted its report also creates doubt in the mind of the Court that the report so submitted by it was impartial and fair.

In this background, as the genesis of the cancellation of the process in issue, i.e., inquiry report dated 13.09.2018, is not sustainable in law, as the same violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, having been conducted at the back of the affected parties and further in a hot haste manner without associating the persons who were to be adversely affected by it, the same is ordered to be quashed and set aside. In other words, the report of the Committee dated 13.09.2018, appended with the petition as Annexure A­20 is quashed and set aside.

As subsequent order dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure A­ 19) is an out come of the inquiry report, which has already been quashed and set aside by this Court, as a natural corollary, the same is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to sponsor the names of the petitioners for training of SAS, in accordance with law, with all consequences to ensue.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.