- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Another v. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1, then serving as Chief Vigilance Inspector in the North-Eastern Railway, sat for a written examination on 12 March 1994 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, Grade B (promotee quota). He qualified when results were declared on 2 May 1994 and was interviewed on 20-21 May 1994 by a three-member Selection Committee chaired by Shri M.M. Goyal (Respondent 2).
The Committee finalised its proceedings on 25 May 1994. Two days later an anonymously delivered cassette and its transcript were placed before the Committee, which reconvened on 30 May 1994 and forwarded the matter to the General Manager. Despite an allegation of mala fides lodged by Respondent 1 on 3 June 1994, the General Manager approved the selection on 11 July 1994 and published a panel of 28 successful candidates.
Respondent 1 challenged the outcome before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (OA No. 1057/1994). The Tribunal quashed the viva-voce result in his case, directed a fresh interview by a differently constituted committee, and ordered retrospective promotion with consequential benefits if he qualified. The North-Eastern Railway and its officials appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the Tribunal’s order during the pendency of the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether alleged bias on the part of the Selection Committee’s Chairman, purportedly arising from his relationship—direct or indirect—with an officer previously investigated by Respondent 1, vitiated the interview process.
- Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing marks and dictating the manner of evaluation in the absence of proven bias or procedural irregularity.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 1’s Arguments
- The Chairman of the Selection Committee was closely connected to Shri Sanjai Mittal, an officer earlier suspended on the basis of Respondent 1’s vigilance report, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
- The award of only 3 out of 25 marks in the personality-leadership segment demonstrated mala fides.
- A tape recording and its transcript, made part of the record after the interview, showed the Chairman making disparaging remarks and consulting his Secretary during the interview, further indicating prejudice.
Appellants’ Arguments
- Any alleged relationship between the Chairman and Shri Sanjai Mittal was categorically denied; even distant kinship was refuted in sworn affidavits.
- The post of Assistant Engineer involves passenger safety; selection is rigorous, documented, and conducted by senior officers of unimpeachable integrity.
- Viva-voce marks are allotted on an overall assessment without sub-division, and minimum benchmarks (15/25 for service record, 30/50 overall) are uniformly applied.
- The Tribunal had no authority to re-evaluate marks or prescribe the mode of interview in the absence of proven procedural violation.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court faulted the Tribunal’s approach on multiple levels:
- No definitive finding on bias: The Tribunal neither established a familial relationship between the Chairman and Shri Sanjai Mittal nor justified treating mere workplace proximity (Secretary-ship) as proof of prejudice. Without concrete evidence, the administrative presumption of bona fides stands.
- Speculative inferences from the tape: Although the tape contained comments on Respondent 1’s lack of field experience, the Court found nothing inherently improper in the questions asked. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the Chairman’s Secretary could have influenced the outcome was labelled “plainly fallacious.”
- Improper judicial intervention in marking: Having accepted that lump-sum marking was permissible and that tape-recording was unnecessary, the Tribunal nevertheless engaged in its own mark-assigning exercise, effectively substituting its judgment for that of expert selectors. The Supreme Court held that such interference is unwarranted absent proof of bias or rule violation.
- Burden of proof: The Court emphasized that the burden to substantiate mala fides rests on the complainant, and it “is not easy to discharge.” Respondent 1 produced insufficient material to overcome the presumption of administrative regularity.
Collectively, these flaws rendered the Tribunal’s order untenable.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed; the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1057/1994 is set aside and the original application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Implications: The selection panel’s original decision remains undisturbed and Respondent 1 is not entitled to a fresh interview or retrospective promotion. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts and tribunals should refrain from re-assessing recruitment evaluations absent demonstrable bias or procedural illegality; however, it sets no new legal precedent beyond applying established administrative-law norms to the facts.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— Respondent 1 herein was working as Chief Vigilance Inspector in North-Eastern Railway. 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. The result of the written test was published on 2-5-1994 and he was declared qualified in the written examination. Thereafter, Respondent 1 appeared for interview before a Selection Committee consisting of Shri M.M Goyal, Chief Engineer as Chairman, Respondent 2 herein, Shri Ram Deo, Chief Personnel Officer (Admn.) and Shri Binod Prasad, Chief Electrical Engineer. His interview took place on 20-5-1994 and 21-5-1994. The selection proceedings were finalised by the Selection Committee on 25-5-1994. On 27-5-1994, a cassette was delivered anonymously to the Chief Personnel Officer who in turn passed it on to the members of the Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Selection Committee met again on 30-5-1994 and took on record the transcript of the cassette anonymously delivered. After recording certain proceedings, the Selection Committee put the entire matter to the General Manager, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, for approval. Thereafter, on 3-6-1994 Respondent 1 alleged mala fides on the part of the Selection Committee and a case was also registered. However, the General Manager approved the selection made by the Selection Committee on 11-7-1994 and the approved panel of 28 candidates was published.
2. Respondent 1 filed an application in OA No. 1057 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). In the meanwhile, Respondent 1 was repatriated to his parent Engineering Department. The Tribunal quashed the result of the viva voce test in respect of Respondent 1 and directed the appellants to subject Respondent 1 to a fresh viva voce test to be held by another Selection Committee to be constituted by persons at appropriate level other than those who constituted 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 consequential benefits, including arrears of salary. Against that order of the Tribunal, this appeal is filed by special leave. This Court granted an interim order staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal.
3. The father of Respondent 1 was employed in the establishment of the appellants and when he died in harness, Respondent 1 was appointed to the post of Inspector of Works in the grade of Rs 2000-3200 on compassionate ground. On completion of his training, he was posted in the Office of the Chief Engineer, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. In April 1991, he opted for an assignment in the Railway Vigilance Department and was posted as Chief Vigilance Inspector. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to Indian Railway Construction Company and was posted in Malaysia for a period of one year from May 1992 to May 1993. On completion of his deputation period he returned to India in May 1993 and resumed his duties in the post of Chief Vigilance Inspector.
4. Respondent 1 alleged in his application before the Tribunal that while he was in the Vigilance Department he had conducted an enquiry 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.M Goyal, Respondent 2, one of the members of the Selection Committee; that, therefore, he apprehended that he would not get a fair deal at the hands of the Selection Committee consisting of Respondent 2; that his apprehension was confirmed by reason of only 3 marks being allotted to him out of 25 marks in the viva voce test in personality, leadership ability and educational qualification as a result of which he was not finally selected. The allegation that Respondent 2 is closely related to Shri Sanjai Mittal was denied as absolutely false. It was averred that Respondent 2 was not 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 costly 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 track 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 the 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.; 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 no separate allocation of marks for personality, leadership, address, academic and technical qualifications etc. Respondent 2 also filed an affidavit denying that he was related to Shri Sanjai Mittal. Respondent 1 thereafter filed a rejoinder-affidavit alleging that Respondent 2 is a cousin of one Shri J.P Goel, who is the father-in-law of Shri Sanjai Mittal and that Shri J.P Goel is also a senior batchmate of Respondent 2 in Roorkee University.
5. The Tribunal approached the matter in a rather strange way. Firstly, it took into consideration the allegation made by Respondent 1 that Shri Sanjai Mittal is related to Respondent 2. On that aspect no finding was recorded by the Tribunal, but it noted as follows:
“Thus, it is clear that Shri Sanjai Mittal, whether or not he was related to Respondent 3 was working as Secretary to Respondent 3 on the date when the viva voce test took place.”
6. And, thereafter, the Tribunal referred to the transcript of tape indicating that during the course of the viva voce test Respondent 3 called his Secretary and told him that the applicant had only been in the Vigilance Department and had no exposure to the fieldwork and, therefore, should be posted in the first as Inspector of Works. Thus, the association of Respondent 2 and his Secretary was taken by the Tribunal to be sufficient to vitiate the interview.
7. In the first place, the Tribunal should have given a definite finding as to whether Shri Sanjai Mittal was related to Respondent 2 or not and, if that ground failed, it should not have allowed Respondent 1 to change his stance that somehow and in some other manner Shri Sanjai Mittal is connected with Respondent 2. The Tribunal should not have proceeded on line proving the moral indicated in one of Aesop's Fables of the lamb and the wolf when the complaint was that the stream was being polluted by the lamb and if not by it, by any of its forefathers. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard is by no reason good enough to chastise the said Respondent 2 and condemn the proceedings conducted not only by him but other officers who are of equivalent rank. There is always a presumption in favour of administration that it exercises powers in good faith and for public benefit. The burden is on the individual to produce sufficient material to suggest of the mala fides of the authority concerned and it is not easy to discharge the same.
8. The Tribunal considered the tape-recorded part of the interview and noticed as follows:
“There is nothing wrong about the questions which sought to elicit the applicant's experience as the same is very relevant to his ability or the lack of it to handle work situations in the higher post. It is, however, the manner in which disparaging remarks were made about the applicant's lack of field experience which tends to indicate that the purpose of the question was not merely to elicit facts. That apart, the very fact that the Secretary was called in during the interview and was told about lack of field experience on the part of the applicant, is quite strange and cannot but give an impression that the Chairman of the Board was not making an objective assessment of the applicant's mental attributes which are really the purpose of the viva voce test.”
On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that it was highly probable that the Secretary could have influenced the Chairman of the Selection Committee against Respondent 1. This approach of the Tribunal is once again plainly fallacious. Firstly, the allegation was that the Chairman was biased because of his close relationship with Shri Sanjai Mittal and thereafter the proximity of the Secretary was considered sufficient to influence the Chairman of the Selection Committee. If this kind of approach is allowed, no administration can be safe and, therefore, we do not appreciate the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded in this matter.
9. The Tribunal proceeded further to consider in what manner the interview should have been conducted, whether the marks should have been allotted in a particular manner or otherwise and whether awarding 3 marks out of total 25 marks was justified in the present case or not. So long as the bias of the Selection Committee could not be proved, the only aspect that the Tribunal ought to have considered was whether there was compliance with the relevant Rules in the conduct of interview.
10. The Tribunal upheld the contentions of the appellants that allotment of marks need not be facultywise and it is open to the members of the Selection Committee to make an overall assessment of the interviewed candidate. Again, the contention as regards tape-recording the questions and answers urged on behalf of Respondent 1 was rejected. The Tribunal observed that overall assessment made by the Selection Committee and allocation of lump sum marks for the same, taken by itself, cannot be considered to have vitiated the test. However, the Tribunal proceeded to make its own assessment of Respondent 1 by reference to his experience as a trainee for a commissioned post in the defence services and what marks should have been allotted to him. The Tribunal also sat in judgment as to whether for academic and technical qualifications the marks allotted by the appellants to Respondent 1 are justified or not.
11. The Tribunal ought to have considered the matter in the right perspective by considering the various contentions raised in the matter and not sit in judgment over the interview and allotted marks on its own and give the directions in the manner it did.
12. Therefore, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and dismiss OA No. 1057 of 1994 filed in the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Alert