Respondent No.
1 thereafter filed a rejoinder affidavit alleging that respondent No.
The allegation that respondent No.
After recording certain proceedings, the Selection Committee put the entire matter to the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, for approval.
So long as the bias of the Selection Committee companyld number be proved, the only aspect that the Tribunal ought to have companysidered was whether there was companypliance with the relevant rules in the companyduct of interview.
2 was number even distantly related to Shri Sanjai Mittal that the post of Assistant Engineer, Group B is a very important and crucial post being directly involved in the safety of life of passengers and maintenance of critical and companytly assets and selection for such a crucial post has got to be very rigorous and each step of selection is well documented that selection is carried out by a Board of three very senior officers of the rank of Head of Department or above with proven trade record of unimpeachable integrity that members of the Selection Committee individually and jointly assess the performance of the applicant to arrive at the suitability of the candidate for promotion that viva voce test carries 50 marks out of which 25 marks are earmarked for the record of service and the remaining 25 marks are allotted for adjudging the personality, leadership, address, academic and technical qualifications, etc.
2 or number and, if that ground failed, it should number have allowed respondent No.
Father of respondent No.
1 filed an application in O.A. No.
In the first place, the Tribunal should have given a definite finding as to whether Shri Sanjai Mittal was related to respondent No.
The result of the written test was published on 2.5.1994 and he was declared qualified in the written examination.
Thereafter, respondent No.
Thereafter, on June 3, 1994 respondent No.
Against that order of the Tribunal this appeal is filed by special leave.
In April 1991 he opted for an assignment in the Railway Vigilance Department and was posted as Chief Vigilance Inspector.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
2, one of the members of the Selection Committee that, therefore, he apprehended that he would number get a fair deal at the hands of Selection Committee companysisting of respondent No.
1 was appointed to the post of Inspector of Works in the Grade of Rs.
1 alleged in his application before the Tribunal that while he was in the Vigilance Department he had companyducted an inquiry against one Shri Sanjai Mittal, Executive Engineer in the Construction Division and on the basis of a report submitted by him, Shri Sanjai Mittal was placed under suspension and was facing disciplinary proceedings that Shri Sanjai Mittal is closely related to Shri M. Goyal, respondent No.
1 to a fresh viva voce test to be held by another Selection Committee to be companystituted by persons at appropriate level other than those who companystituted the earlier Selection Committee and if, as a result thereof, he is declared qualified, he shall be promoted with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted with all companysequential benefits, including arrears of salary.
And, thereafter, the Tribunal referred to the transcript of tape indicating that during the companyrse of viva voce test respondent No.
He appeared for written examination held on 12.3.1994 for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer, Grade B for filling up 70 of the vacancies reserved for promotees.
His interview took place on May 20 and 21, 1994.
It was averred that respondent No.
In the meanwhile, respondent No.
On companypletion of his deputation period he returned to India in May 1993 and resumed his duties in the post of Chief Vigilance Inspector.
2 herein, Shri Ram Deo, Chief Personnel Officer Admn.
On May 27, 1994 a cassette was delivered anonymously to the Chief Personnel Officer who in turn passed it on to the members of the Selection Committee.
On companypletion of his training he was posted in the office of the Chief Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
1 by reference to his experience as a trainee for a companymissioned post in Defence Services and what marks should have been allotted to him.
Thus, the association of respondent No.2 and his Secretary was taken by the Tribunal to be sufficient to vitiate the interview.
On that aspect numberfinding was recorded by the Tribunal, but it numbered as follows Thus, it is clear that Shri Sanjai Mittal, whether or number he was related to the respondent No.
However, the Tribunal proceeded to make its own assessment of respondent No.
Firstly, it took into companysideration the allegation made by respondent No.
3 called his Secretary and told him that the applicant had only been in Vigilance Department and had numberexposure to the field work and, therefore, should be posted in the first as Inspector of Works.
Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to the Indian Railway Construction Company and was posted in Malaysia for a period of one year from May 1992 to May 1993.
1 alleged mala fides on the part of the Selection Committee and a case was also registered.
1 was employed on the establishment of the appellants and when he died in harness, respondent No.
3 on the date when the viva voce test took place.
The Tribunal quashed the result of the viva voce test in respect of respondent No.
Again, the companytention as regards tape recording the questions and answers urged on behalf of respondent No.
Respondent No.
However, the General Manager approved the selection made by the Selection Committee on July 11, 1994 and the approved panel of 28 candidates was published.
The Tribunal upheld the companytentions of the appellants that allotment of marks need number be faculty wise and it is open to the members of the Selection Committee to make an over all assessment of the interviewed candidate.
Thereafter, the Selection Committee met again on May 30, 1994 and took on record the transcript of the cassette anonymously delivered.
that it is essential for the candidate to secure a minimum of 15 marks out of 25 marks for the record of service also he must secure a minimum of 30 marks out of total 50 marks in the viva voce test that there is numberseparate allocation of marks for personality, leadership, address, academic and technical qualifications, etc.
This Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal.
2 also filed an affidavit denying that he was related to Shri Sanjai Mittal.
1 was rejected.
3 was working as Secretary to respondent No.
1057 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal.
2 that his apprehension was companyfirmed by reason of only 3 marks being allotted to him out of 25 marks in the viva vice test in personality, leadership, ability and educational qualification as a result of which he was number finally selected.
The Tribunal approached the matter in a rather strange way.
1 that Shri Sanjai Mittal is related to respondent No.
The selection proceedings were finalised by the Selection Committee on May 25, 1994.
1 and directed the appellants to subject respondent No.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. Respondent No.
1 appeared for interview before a Selection Committee companysisting of Shri M.M. Goyal, Chief Engineer as Chairman, respondent No.
2000 3200 on companypassionate ground.
1 herein was working as Chief Vigilance Inspector at North Eastern Railway.
and Shri Binod Prasad, Chief Electrical Engineer.
1 was repatriated to his parent Engineering Department.
2 is closely related to Shri Sanjai Mittal was denied as absolutely false.
