ORDER

1. THE APPELLANTS BEFORE US ARE THE CANDIDATES WHO HAD APPEARED FOR AN EXAMINATION IN 1989 WHICH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE POST OF COMMERCIAL CLERKS AND TICKET COLLECTORS IN THE RAILWAYS. IT IS THEIR CASE THAT THEY WERE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW BUT WERE ULTIMATELY NOT SELECTED. THEY CAME TO KNOW OF THIS FACT IN 1990 WHEN A LIST OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES WAS PUBLISHED. FOUR OF THEM FILED ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN 1991. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN THESE APPLICATIONS WAS THE ELIMINATION OF THE APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERVIEW. WHILE THE APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING, THE RAILWAYS RECRUITMENT BOARD (RRB) AT GORAKHPUR SOUGHT CLEARANCE FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS, INCLUDING OTHER RECORDS PERTAINING, INTER ALIA, TO THE EXAMINATION IN QUESTION. THE PERMISSION WAS REFUSED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT WHICH FOUND, ON A SCRUTINY OF THE ANSWER PAPERS AND OTHER RECORDS, THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN HOLDING AND EVALUATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER INVESTIGATION. IN 1994, THE FIFTH APPLICATION WAS MADE BY ONE OF THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE SELECTION PROCESS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989. IN 1995 THE APPELLANTS FILED TWO APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ONE FOR BRINGING THE VIGILANCE REPORT ON RECORD AND THE SECOND FOR A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT ANSWER-SHEETS. THESE APPLICATIONS WERE ULTIMATELY DISMISSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE MAIN MATTER IN 1997. THE APPELLANTS IMPUGNED THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SAME YEAR. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT INVOLVED DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT. IN JANUARY 2000, THE APPELLANTS PREFERRED AN SLP BEFORE THIS COURT ON WHICH THIS COURT DIRECTED ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 11-5-2000.

2. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE PERSONS WHO WERE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989 AND SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS AND WHO ACCEPTED THE POSITION, JOINED THE SERVICE AND HAVE BEEN CONTINUING AS SUCH.

3. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS CANNOT NOW CLAIM TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POST OF COMMERCIAL CLERKS AND TICKET COLLECTOR ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989. FIRSTLY, THEY HAVE NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO BE SO APPOINTED. SECONDLY, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE CANDIDATES WHO, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN WRONGLY SELECTED, WERE REMOVED, THE APPELLANTS WOULD BE THE NEXT BEST CANDIDATES TO BE SELECTED. THE HIGHEST THAT THE APPELLANTS CAN CLAIM IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE WAITING LIST. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE LIFE OF A WAITING LIST DOES NOT SURVIVE INDEFINITELY. THE APPELLANTS CANNOT, THEREFORE, SUCCEED.

4. HOWEVER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT, AN ALARMING STATE OF AFFAIRS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED RELATING TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE RAILWAYS. AFTER 1992, WHEN THE PRAYER FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE ANSWER-SHEETS WAS EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED BY AN OFFICER OF THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, AND WHEN SUCH OFFICER HAS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE VERY RECORDS SOUGHT TO BE DESTROYED, COME TO AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION AGAINST SEVERAL SENIOR OFFICERS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING THE 1989 EXAMINATION, THE LEAST THAT COULD BE ACCEPTED OF ANY AUTHORITY, LEAVE ALONE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, WAS THAT SUCH RECORDS INCLUDING THE ANSWER-SHEETS SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT SAFELY. THIS WAS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY WHEN THE MATTER WAS PENDING ADJUDICATION INITIALLY BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THEREAFTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND FINALLY BEFORE THIS COURT. THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE MAIN ALLEGATIONS WERE RAISED IN THE VIGILANCE REPORT WAS H THE THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE RAILWAYS RECRUITMENT BOARD (RRB), ONE P.S. VIMAL. WHILE ACTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF T