SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Samrah Ahmad – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 4453, 4531, 4572, 4578, 4631, 5713, 5912, 6117, 7150, 7474, 7893, 8884, 9333, 10075, 10447, 11201, 11662, 11957 of 2020, Writ (A) Nos. 7076, 7105, 8744, 8747, 8936, 9899, 10440, 11919, 12010, 12501, 13212, 14566 of 2021, Writ (A) Nos. 7952, 17507 of 2022
Decided On : 04-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Khare.
For the Respondents: Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Pranjal Mehrotra.

The court emphasized that the integrity of public employment selections must be maintained, ruling that the failure to publish the master answer key and deletion of original data rendered the selection process void.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Jal Nigam Act, 1975 - Sections 7(3), 8 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 2(zh), 79A - The court held that the entire selection process for Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers, and Routine Grade Clerks was compromised due to gross irregularities, including failure to publish the master answer key and deletion of original data from the cloud server. The court emphasized the need for transparency and integrity in public employment selections. (Paras 1, 2, 163, 263, 364)

(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that administrative decisions can be overturned if found to be irrational, illegal, or procedurally improper, emphasizing the importance of maintaining public trust in the selection process. (Paras 288, 289)

Facts of the case:
The case involved multiple writ petitions challenging the annulment of selections and appointments made by U.P. Jal Nigam for various engineering posts. The selection process was outsourced to M/s Aptech Ltd., which faced allegations of irregularities, including inflated marks and failure to follow proper procedures. The court examined reports from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and experts from IIT Kanpur and IIIT Allahabad. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the selection process was fundamentally flawed due to the deletion of original data, lack of transparency, and failure to follow established procedures, leading to the conclusion that the entire selection process was void. The court ordered the restoration of appointments for untainted candidates and directed interviews for those who were wrongfully excluded. (Paras 375, 376, 377)

Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the selection process was compromised to the extent that it was impossible to segregate tainted from untainted candidates and whether the findings of the SIT and CFSL reports justified the annulment of the selections. (Paras 163, 164, 268)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to publish the master answer key and the deletion of original data compromised the integrity of the selection process, necessitating the annulment of the entire process while allowing for the adjustment of untainted candidates. (Paras 364, 365, 366)

Result: The orders impugned dated 02.03.2020 are quashed, and the appointments of untainted candidates are restored, with directions for interviews for those wrongfully excluded.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava for petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjali Goklani and Ms. Ananya Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent U.P. Jal Nigam, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) and Sri V.K. Rai and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ms. Meha Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent M/s. Aptech Limited.

2. This bunch of petitions consists of above noted writ petitions that arise out of the same advertisements and selections qua posts of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers (different trades) and Routine Grade Clerks of same department namely U.P. Jal Nigam and are, therefore, connected. Now this bunch of petitions is being heard and decided.

FACTS

3. The erstwhile U.P. Jal Nigam prior to its split into two corporations, namely, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) and U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) issued advertisements on 18th June, 2016, 28th October, 2016 and 29th November, 2016 inviting applications for making selection and appointments against 335 vacancies of Routine Grade Clerks (including stenographers), 853 vacancies of Junior Engineers in the break-up of 723 for Civil trade, 126 of Mechanical/Electrical trade and 122 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the break-up 113 for Civil trade, 5 for Mechanical/Electrical trade and 4 Computer Science/Electronic Communication.

4. As against the posts of Assistant Engineers about 34128 candidates in different trades, 61,452 candidates for the posts of Junior Engineers (different trades) and 84,643 candidates against the post Routine Grade Clerk appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) that was held for the selection and appointment purposes.

5. The CBT for the post of Assistant Engineers was conducted on 16th December, 2016 in 2 shifts, one for Civil and one shift for other trades, whereas for the post of Junior Engineer, the CBT was held on 6th December, 2016 and 7th December, 2016 in 5 shifts and for the Routine Grade Clerk, the CBT was held from 5th August, 2016 to 7th August, 2016 inclusive.

6. Four set of question papers were prepared for the post of Assistant Engineer consisting of 80 questions each. For the post of Junior Engineers five set of question papers consisting of 80 questions each and for the Routine Grade Clerk nine question papers were prepared consisting of 80 questions each.

7. The CBT results were declared for the posts of Assistant Engineer on 17th December, 2016 for the post of Junior Engineer on 7th December, 2016 and for the Routine Grade Clerk on 9th August, 2016.

8. In the category of Assistant Engineers (Civil) 522 candidates, in the category of Mechanical 22 candidates and Computer Science/Electronic Communication 20 candidates were shown to have qualified in the CBT.

9. In respect of the Junior Engineers 3961 candidates qualified for civil trade, whereas 699 candidates qualified in the Mechanical/Electrical trade.

10. In the CBT conducted for Routine Grade Clerks and Stenographers in 2316 candidates were shown to have qualified and out of that only 718 candidates were successful in the typing test, who were ultimately interviewed.

11. In order to conduct interview the corporation proceeded to constitute Boards. 6 Interview Boards were constituted for Assistant Engineers. 10 Interview Boards were constituted for Junior Engineers and 6 Interview Boards were constituted for Routine Grade Clerks.

12. Interview for the post of Assistant Engineers in different trades were held on 30th December, 2016 and 31st December, 2016. For the posts of Junior Engineer in different trades were held from 19th December, 2016 to 7

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top