Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2946

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Shamsher Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application Nos. 2051/2025|2052/2025|643/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N D Qazi, Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Mr. Joginder Singh Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG, Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Special Counsel for LG Office, J & K, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG

Appointments from systemically tainted recruitment process void ab initio; no Article 311(2) protection or individual enquiry required; State may terminate en masse to restore public service purity.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Termination of service - Recruitment process found vitiated by systemic irregularities including question paper leakage, mark manipulation, impersonation, and suspicious selection patterns - Inquiry Committee constituted to examine allegations, report forwarded with inputs from anti-corruption agencies - Government Order terminating services of appointees upheld - No individual departmental enquiry or show cause notice required where entire selection process stands tainted at foundational level, as protection under Article 311(2) unavailable for appointments void ab initio due to fraud vitiating entry into service. 'Fraud vitiates every solemn act'; beneficiaries of corrupted process cannot claim indefeasible right to continuance merely absent personal culpability proof. (Paras 10, 12-14, 20, 25)

(B) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 311(2) - Natural justice - Individual hearing not mandatory in mass cancellation of tainted appointments where material establishes structural corruption rendering process non-est; segregation of tainted/untainted feasible but not compelled when scam widespread - State duty to restore institutional purity outweighs sympathetic considerations for appointees; criminal prosecution distinct from administrative correction. Earlier judicial upholding on limited record no bar to later annulment on fresh evidence. (Paras 11, 17, 24, 27, 31)

(C) Public employment - Recruitment scam - State empowered to annul en masse without awaiting criminal convictions; officials/middlemen involved to face strict action - Balance between equity and justice mandates termination of beneficiaries while directing probe completion against facilitators. (Paras 47-49)

Facts of the case:
Batch of applications challenging termination of Fireman/Fireman Driver appointees pursuant to recruitment process of 2013-2020 found tainted by inquiry revealing large-scale irregularities; one application assailing original selection list alleging question paper leak.

Findings of Court:
Recruitment process fundamentally vitiated; terminations lawful without individual enquiries; challenge to selection process infructuous post-termination.

Issues: Whether termination valid absent individual notice/enquiry when process tainted; applicability of Article 311(2); survival of challenge to original selection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment infected by systemic fraud, appointments void; no constitutional/service rule protection; State may annul without per-candidate hearings to uphold public employment integrity under Articles 14/16.

Result: Applications dismissed; one rendered infructuous.

Table of Content
1. lists parties and applications involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicants seek quashing of termination orders. (Para 4)
3. factual background of recruitment and termination. (Para 5)
4. respondents defend termination due to tainted process. (Para 6)
5. inquiry revealed systemic recruitment irregularities. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
6. no individual enquiry needed for tainted recruitment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
7. administrative action precedes criminal proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
8. fraud vitiates recruitment; no indefeasible right. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
9. article 311 inapplicable to void appointments. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. no individual segregation required in systemic fraud. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
11. natural justice yields to public interest in scams. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
12. institutional inquiry suffices for process invalidity. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
13. no bias in acb inquiry. (Para 38 , 39)
14. terminations upheld; oa 643 infructuous. (Para 40 , 41)
15. oas dismissed as without merit. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
16. direct action against erring officials. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

OA 2051/2025 a) Quash and set aside Government Order No. 608- Home of 2025 dated 15.12.2025, insofar as it relates to the applicant;

b) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits including seniority, pay and allowances; be released in favour of the applicants.

c) In the alternative, restrain the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order without conducting a lawful departmental enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing;

d) Further the enquiry report and the recommendations of the enquiry committee be declared as non-est in the eyes of law, or the same be quashed and set aside alongwith order dated 18-

12-2025.

OA 2052/2025 a) Quash and set aside Government Order No. 608- Home of 2025 dated 15.12.2025, insofar as it relates to the applicant;

c) In the alternative, restrain the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order without conducting a lawful departmental enquiry after providing due opportunity of hearing;

d) Further the enquiry report and the recommendations of the enquiry committee be declared as non-est in the eyes of law, or the same be quashed and set aside alongwith order dated 18-

12-2025.

OA 643/2022 a) Quash the selection list impugned issued pursuant to the Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2013 dated 12.03.2013, issued by the official Respondents for the post of Fireman/Fireman Driver as the same is illegal in view of leakage of question paper much prior to start of actual exams which was made available in the Public domain before the start of written examination;

b) Quash the order No.823 of 2020 Dated 04.10.2020 by virtue of which sanction has been accorded for the appointment of private respondents;

c) Direct the respondents to re-conduct the written Test for the post of Fireman/Fireman driver;

d) Restrain the official Respondents from allowing the private respondents / selectees to join against the post of Fireman / Fireman Driver pursuant to sanction of appointment issued in terms of Order No.823 off 2020 Dated 04.10.2020;

e) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems appropriate and considers the applicants entitled thereto be also issued.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicants in the present batch of Original Applications, namely O.A. No. 643/2022, O.A. No. 2051/2025 and O.A. No. 2052/2025, were appointed as Fireman / Firem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2946

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative MemberShamsher Singh – AppellantVersusUnion Territory of Jammu & Kashmir – RespondentOriginal Application Nos. 2051/2025|2052/2025|643/2022

Appointments from systemically tainted recruitment process void ab initio; no Article 311(2) protection or individual enquiry required; State may terminate en masse to restore public service purity.

Cases Referred (4)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Shamsher Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application Nos. 2051/2025|2052/2025|643/2022