The cancellation of a selection process based solely on improper valuation of answer scripts must be scrutinized to ensure that it is justified and proportionate.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Questioning the faultlessness of the decision rendered in three original applications being O.A. No. 544/2007, O.A. No. 580/2007 and O.A. No. 724/ 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by a singular order dated 14-12-2007 the Railway Administration and its functionaries have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. It is apposite to state here that three original applications were preferred by various incumbents assailing the action of the respondents who had cancelled the selection process vide order dated 6-8-2007 (Annexure A-1) to the original application and, therefore, it is seemly to uncurtain and unfold the facts on a common canvass.

2. The petitioner No. 2, the Divisional Manager Railways, Jabalpur issued a notification dated 14-12-2007 to fill up 16 posts (15 of general category and 1 of scheduled tribe) of Chief Ticket Inspector. The list of Assistant Chief Ticket Inspector within the zone of consideration was published alongwith the notification and all eligible candidates who were included in the zone of consideration were directed to appear in the test scheduled to be held on 10-3-2007. As per order dated 10-7-2007 12 candidates were declared pass in the written test conducted for the posts in question. Out of 12 candidates 2 reserved candidates were declared pass with the relaxed standard. After publication of result in written examination the Additional Divisional Railway Manager received information regarding series of irregularities in the selection process. He called for the answer scripts to scrutinize the irregularities and found that certain candidates who have got less marks should have been awarded more marks and certain candidates who have been conferred the benefit of more marks deserved less marks. It was found by the authority that unwanted favour had been shown to certain candidates. In essence, irregularities pertaining to unfair valuation of the answer scripts were perceived. Because of the said situation the Railway Administration formed a bona fide opinion that the order of selection is vitiated by extraneous consideration and, therefore, it issued the order dated 06-8-2007 cancelling the selection process. The substantiality of the said order was assailed before the Tribunal.

3. It was contended before the Tribunal that the Railway Vigilance Cell has not found anything against the applicants therein and, therefore, they should not be penalized for no fault of theirs. They also questioned the authority of Additional Divisional Railway Manager who had scrutinized the answer scripts and directed cancellation of the selection process.

4. The Railway Administration putforth a stance before the Tribunal that finding irregularities in the selection process it was thought condign to cancel the selection process. It was also urged that mere selection does not confer any right on the applicants and hence, they are not entitled to question the cancellation of selection.

5. As is evincible from the order of the Tribunal, it has perused the record and noticed certain inconsistencies in the valuation of the answer scripts. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the candidates had not committed any malpractice in the written examination and answers of the applicants were not subjected to improper valuation except that of one applicant, namely, B.K. Dubey. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision rendered in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalinilkathu and Anr. AIR2003SC4222 and came to hold that the principles enunciated therein are applicable. Being of this view it set aside the order dated 06-8-2007 and directed the respondents therein to further complete the selection process as per the Rules.

6. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:

(i) The respondents-petiti