Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 535
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR K UMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, A, MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, J
Ranjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Survey Of India – Respondent
O.A./876/2018
Smt. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate - Shri Nikhil Ranjan, Addl. CGSC
The rectification of erroneous promotions based on malpractice is permissible, and lack of notice does not invalidate reversion if the inquiry was not against the applicants.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - The applicants challenged the reversion order dated 03.10.2018, claiming it violated principles of natural justice due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal found that the reversion was based on a valid inquiry into malpractice in the LDCE 2002 results. (Paras 1, 18, 19)
(B) Promotion and Reversion - The applicants were promoted based on erroneous results from LDCE 2002. The Tribunal ruled that the rectification of such mistakes by the employer is permissible, and the applicants cannot claim rights to posts obtained through flawed promotions. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicants were initially appointed as Group 'D' Khalashi and later promoted through LDCE 2002. They were reverted to their original posts based on findings of malpractice in the LDCE results. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the reversion order, stating that the applicants were not entitled to the posts due to the erroneous basis of their promotions. The Tribunal directed that no recovery be made from the applicants for the period of reversion. (Paras 21-23)
Issues: The main issues were whether the reversion order violated principles of natural justice and whether the applicants had a right to the posts they held. (Paras 18, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal concluded that the lack of notice did not invalidate the reversion since the inquiry was not against the applicants but against the examination board's malpractice. The rectification of mistakes in promotions is within the employer's rights. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: OA is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Rajveer Singh Verma, M[J]
Three applicants namely Ranjit singh, Mukhlal Saw and Kuleshwar Ravi Das have jointly filed this OA for following relief:-
“8.1) The Reversion order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Respondent no.2 so far these petitioners are concerned (Ann-A/2) be quashed.
8.2) The Respondents be directed not to give effect to the order dated 03.10.2018 and to allow the petitioners to perform their regular duties to the post of Survey Asstt.without any disturbances.
8.3) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioners and to extend the same benefits at per with their same and similarly situated persons.
8.4) Any other relief or reliefs for which these petitioner are entitled to.”
2. Brief facts of case are that applicants namely Ranjit singh, Mukhlal Saw and Kuleshwar Ravidas were initially appointed vide office order dt. 22.02.1999, 04.12.1981 and 04.09.1986 respectively as Group „D‟ contingent Khalashi thereafter they all were appointed to the post of Regular Khalashi Group „D‟ post in the scle of 2550-3200/-.
3. Being eligible, all the three applicants were appeared in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on October, 2002 for promotion of Group „C‟. The result of the said LDCE was published on 04.06.2003 and applicants were declared passed in the said examination successfully and accordingly sent for training from 26.03.2003 to 25.05.2005. After completion of training from STI Hyderabad, Upal (AP) they were promoted to the post of Group „C‟ P/Tr. Grade IV vide order dt. 20.03.2006 w.e.f. 01.07.2005.
4. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of P/Tr. Grade III vide order dt. 01.01.2009 after passing the Departmental Trade Test. Again vide order dt. 01.01.2011, they all were promoted to the post of P/Tr. Grade II through Departmental Trade Test. Applicants have worked at the post of P/Tr. Grade II continuously for six years and thereafter all the applicants were again promoted to the post of Survey Assistant through DPC vide order dt. 26.12.2017 and since then they were holding the post of Survey Assistant till 03.10.2018.
5. Applicants received the reversion order dt. 03.10.2018 vide which 22 Survey Assistants including the applicants have been reverted to the substantive post held in year 2002 in Group „D‟ cadre on the ground that the concerned office have received the complaints from candidates regarding malpractice in compilation of marks statements of LDCE held during October, 2002 and on the basis fresh tabulated marks statements have been prepared by the Inquiry officer and then 22 Survey Assistants have been found ineligible in the said examination/ promotion in Group „C‟ top test.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the revision order dt. 03.10.2018, all the applicant filed the present OA. It is understood that several OAs on the similar issue are pending in different Benches of this Tribunal.
7. This Tribunal vide its interim order dt. 25.10.2018 have ordered for keeping in abeyance of operation of the impugned order dt. 03.10.2018. However, the said interim order was vacated by this Tribunal Vide order dt. 07.12.2014.
8. Keeping in view the fact that grievances of applicants are similar against the same respondents, the prayer for joint prosecution is allowed.
9. Respondents have filed their written statement and they have opposed the contentions of the applicants as made by them in OA on several grounds and respondents have prayed for dismissal of OA.
10. It is the case of the respondents that the applicants of present OA including other candidates appeared in LDCE 2002. They were erroneously declared successful in the said examination by the then examination Board. Consequently, applicants were erroneously directed to Survey Training Institute, Hyderabad for necessary job training. After successful completion of the said training, they were promoted in further higher grades i.e. Grade III, Grade II and finally they were promoted through DPC to the post of Survey Assistant (a Group B
