Priy Ranjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri Gaurav Gautam, Shri L.S. Kushwaha and Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicants in their respective cases and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan along with Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in their respective cases.

Since the issues involved in OA No.1049/2023, OA No.1099/2023, OA No.1037/2023, OA No.462/2024, OA No.1061/2023 and OA No.1031/2023 are identical and arise out of the same recruitment process and substantially similar impugned action, all the aforesaid Original Applications have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience and as the leading case, the facts and submissions in OA No.1049/2023, Priy Ranjan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., are being referred to and the findings recorded herein shall govern all the connected Original Applications, subject to their respective individual facts, wherever relevant.

The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the pleadings in the connected Original Applications, are that Respondent No.4 issued a notification for recruitment to the post of Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff and Havaldar (CBIC & CBN) under the MTS & Havaldar Examination, 2021. The applicants in the present batch participated in the said recruitment process for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff in their respective categories. They appeared in the prescribed stages of examination and were thereafter subjected to document verification. Upon completion of the recruitment process, the applicants were selected and allotted to the concerned department and their dossiers were forwarded by the Staff Selection Commission to the concerned user department for further necessary action.

Short and Detailed Counter Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in the respective cases. As per the respondents, the applicants were selected by the Staff Selection Commission on the basis of their performance in the MTS Examination, 2021 and were allocated to the concerned user department, including the Controller of Defence Accounts (Funds), Meerut Cantt. The dossiers of the selected candidates were forwarded by the SSC (CR), Prayagraj vide letter dated 17.04.2023, along with advice to verify the particulars and documents before issuance of the offers of appointment. Soft copies of the dossiers were also provided to the concerned department for the purpose of verification.

In rejoinder, the applicants reiterated that the alleged discrepancies in the dossiers/photographs had neither been established by any cogent material nor supported by any expert opinion. The applicants had participated in the various stages of the recruitment process and their photographs, signatures, thumb impressions and specimen handwriting had been obtained at different stages, which could have been compared for verification of their identity. It is further reiterated that the applicants were neither confronted with the alleged discrepancies nor afforded any opportunity to explain the same before their appointments/offers of appointment were withdrawn and that the respondents could not subsequently improve upon the impugned orders by introducing new grounds in the Counter Affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of their cases have submitted the following submissions:-

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the Original Applications submitted the following submissions in support of their cases: -

We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings and material available on record.

The controversy involved in the present batch essentially relates to the legality and sustainability of the separate, though identical, orders dated 06.11.2023, whereby the appointments/offers of appointment of the applicants pursuant to the MTS & Havaldar Examination, 2021 were terminated/withdrawn on the basis of discrepancies allegedly noticed during verification of the dossiers. Since the impugned action in all the connected matters emanates from the same recruitment process and substantially identical reasons recorded in the orders dated 06.11.2023, the sustainability of the said action is required to be examined in the backdrop of the reasons recorded therein and the material relied upon by the respondents.

There is no dispute with the general proposition that selection by the Staff Selection Commission does not, by itself, preclude the concerned user department from verifying the candidature, documents and other particulars of a selected candidate before permitting him to join or continue in service. The SSC itself, while forwarding the dossiers vide communication dated 17.04.2023, advised the concerned department to undertake the requisite verification. Thus, the respondents were competent to undertake verification of the dossiers. However, the exercise of such power must be founded upon relevant material and has to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the principles of fairness and natural justice, particularly when the consequence of such verification is termination of an appointment already made and, in several cases, acted upon by the applicants by joining the post.

The impugned Speaking Order dated 06.11.2023 is, therefore, required to be examined on its own contents. The principal basis of the impugned action is the discrepancy allegedly noticed in the dossiers/photographs during comparison of the physical dossiers with the soft copies received from the SSC. However, merely noticing a discrepancy in a photograph cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that a particular candidate had indulged in impersonation, malpractice or had obtained appointment by adopting an illegal means. Such a conclusion would require the respondents to establish a clear nexus between the discrepancy noticed and the candidature of the concerned applicant.

In the present cases, the applicants had undergone the various stages of the recruitment process, during which photographs, signatures, thumb impressions and specimen handwriting were obtained at different stages. These identification particulars were admittedly available for the purpose of verification. In such circumstances, where the respondents intended to take the extreme step of terminating the appointments/offers of appointment on the basis of a doubt regarding identity or genuineness of candidature, the relevant material forming the basis of such conclusion ought to have been clearly identified and considered in respect of the concerned applicant.

We also find substance in the grievance of the applicants that they were not afforded an opportunity to explain the specific discrepancy allegedly noticed in their respective dossiers before the impugned action was taken. The record, as placed before us, does not disclose that the applicants were confronted with the particular photograph or other material relied upon against them and were given an opportunity to establish their identity by reference to the photographs, signatures, thumb impressions or specimen handwriting available at different stages of the recruitment process. Where an adverse decision carrying serious civil and stigmatic consequences is founded upon a disputed question concerning the genuineness of candidature, the observance of the principles of natural justice assumes considerable significance.

The respondents have sought to justify the impugned action by referring, inter alia, to the communications exchanged with the SSC on 16.08.2023, 17.08.2023 and 12.10.2023. These communications may explain the administrative process adopted for verification of dossiers, but they do not, by themselves, establish that each of the present applicants had committed impersonation, malpractice or any other misconduct. The ultimate decision against an individual applicant has to be supported by applicant-specific material. A general discrepancy noticed in the dossiers of candidates of a recruitment batch cannot, without further verification, automatically establish an adverse finding against every candidate whose appointment was subsequently terminated.

Another significant aspect of the matter is that the applicants had already been appointed and, in several cases, had joined their respective posts and their pay had also been fixed. Thus, the impugned action was not merely a decision not to issue an appointment letter to a selected candidate; in several cases, it brought an end to an appointment which had already been acted upon. The nature and consequence of such action, therefore, required the respondents to adopt a fair procedure and to arrive at a definite conclusion on the basis of material relating to the individual applicant.

We are also conscious of the contention of the respondents that the impugned action was not punitive but was an action arising out of verification of the genuineness of candidature. However, the nomenclature or characterisation of an order cannot be determinative of its legal effect. Where an order attributes, expressly or by necessary implication, lack of bona-fides, adoption of improper means or irregularity in obtaining appointment and results in termination of an appointment, the Court/Tribunal is required to examine the substance of the action and the procedure followed before such adverse consequences were imposed.

A significant subsequent development having direct bearing on the controversy is the Speaking Order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the respondents in OA No.1099/2023. By the said order, the Speaking Order dated 06.11.2023 in respect of the applicants of OA No.1099/2023 was withdrawn. The relevant portions of the Speaking Order dated 06.11.2023 and the subsequent Speaking Order dated 29.05.2026 are reproduced hereinbelow:

Speaking order by which the appointment/offer of appointment of the applicants were terminated/withdrawn

From the aforesaid subsequent development, it is evident that the respondents, upon further examination of the matter in OA No.1099/2023, recorded that no discrepancies were found in the dossiers of the applicants therein and consequently withdrew the Speaking Order dated 06.11.2023 in respect of those applicants. In view thereof, the challenge to the said order in OA No.1099/2023 no longer survives and the said Original Application has consequently become infructuous.

So far as the remaining connected Original Applications are concerned, their impugned orders dated 06.11.2023 have not been withdrawn. However, the subsequent decision dated 29.05.2026 passed by the respondents in OA No.1099/2023 assumes significance, as it relates to the same recruitment process and substantially the same verification exercise which led to the impugned orders in the present batch. The respondents are, therefore, required to examine the cases of the applicants in the remaining connected Original Applications in the light of the said subsequent decision and the individual facts and material relating to their respective dossiers.

If, upon such examination, the respondents find that the cases of the applicants in the remaining connected Original Applications are similarly situated to the applicants of OA No.1099/2023, they shall accord the same treatment to such applicants as has been extended to the applicants of OA No.1099/2023.

In respect of those applicants who had already joined duty and had actually discharged their duties but were not paid salary for the period so served, the respondents shall release the admissible salary for such period in accordance with rules.

As regards criminal antecedents, wherever applicable, the same shall be considered separately in accordance with the applicable Government instructions. Where the concerned applicant had duly disclosed the pendency of the criminal case in the attestation form, such disclosure shall be taken into consideration while examining the matter and shall not, by itself, be treated as suppression of the relevant fact.

Accordingly, OA No.1099/2023 is dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the subsequent withdrawal of the impugned Speaking Order dated 06.11.2023 by the respondents vide order dated 29.05.2026. However, in respect of any applicant therein who had actually discharged duties but has not been paid the admissible salary for the period so served, the respondents shall release the same in accordance with rules. The remaining connected Original Applications, namely OA No.1049/2023, OA No.1037/2023, OA No.462/2024, OA No.1061/2023 and OA No.1031/2023, are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the cases of the respective applicants in the light of the Speaking Order dated 29.05.2026 passed in OA No.1099/2023, along with the individual facts and material relating to their respective dossiers. If the cases are found to be similarly situated, the applicants shall be accorded the same treatment as given to the applicants of OA No.1099/2023. In respect of those applicants who had already joined duty and had discharged their duties but were not paid salary for the period so served, the respondents shall release the admissible salary for such period in accordance with rules. The interim orders, if any, operating in the remaining connected Original Applications shall continue to remain in force till the competent authority passes the aforesaid reasoned and speaking order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the record of all the connected Original Applications.

All pending MAs, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.