U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. vs Ajit Singh Patel & Ors.

HELD: 1. Upon reading the order dated 16 March, 2018 and/or along with the order dated 20th August, 2018, passed by Supreme Court, it is amply clear that the liberty granted to the appellants was very limited. It posits that no other contention was kept open or could be raised in the review application or in any subsequent proceedings before this Court. As no liberty had been granted to the appellants to challenge the judgment of the High Court dated 28th November, 2017 afresh, it would mean that the appellants can pursue the Special Leave petition only against the decision of the High Court in review application, which the High Court had rejected for the reasons recorded in its order dated 25th July, 2018. In absence of such liberty to the appellants, filing of fresh special leave petition against the self-same judgment is not permissible. [Para 10][818-C-E]

Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa and Others (2012) 12 SCC 378 : [2012] 8 SCR 1089; Kumaran Silks Trade (P) Ltd.. (2) v. Devendra and Others (2006) 8 SCC 555 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 670; Sandhya Educational Society and Another v. Union of India and Others (2014) 7 SCC 701 – relied on.

2. The judgment of the High Court in review application is a benign one and is certainly not more adverse to the appellants. For, the High Court has restated the dictum in its judgment dated 28th November, 2017 - that it would be open to the appellants to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones and to pass a fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity to the affected candidates. The High Court has also clarified that the order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has been quashed on the sole ground that it was hit by principles of natural justice, having been passed without issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidates and also because the said order does not refer to the fact that an exercise was already undertaken by the appellants to distinguish the case of tainted and untainted candidates and arrived at the conclusion that it was not possible to do so, before issuing the impugned order dated 11 th August, 2017. [Para 11][818-F-H; 819-A]

3. The opinions given by the experts (Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad and Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur) which was relied on by the appellants, were certainly not available to the appropriate authority before the order was passed on 11th August, 2017. Indeed, the appropriate authority took into account two inquiry reports but the same did not evince that an exercise had already been undertaken to distinguish the tainted and untainted candidates or that it was not possible to do so, so as to uphold the decision of declaring the entire selection process as void. Had the appropriate authority done that exercise and recorded its satisfaction in that behalf, to be reflected in the order passed by the Chief Engineer on 11th August, 2017, the High Court could have then followed the settled legal position that the nature and extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about the future course of action to be adopted in the matter. [Para 12][819-B-E] Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146 : [2002] 1 SCR 1091 – referred to.

4. Further, if the mischief played is so widespread and allpervasive, affecting the result so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. In that case, the only option would be to cancel the whole selection process and not limiting to one section of appointees. [Para 12][819-E-F]

Veerendra Kumar Gautam and Others v. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and Others (2016) 14 SCC 18; Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2014) 6 SCC

644 : [2014] 6 SCR 383; Vikas Pratap Singh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2013) 14 SCC 494 : [2013] 10 SCR 1114 – relied on.

Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146 : [2002] 1 SCR 1091 – distinguished.

5. While disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants on the earlier occasion vide order dated 16th March, 2018, this Court has neither disturbed the conclusion reached by the High Court in its order dated 28th November, 2017 nor granted liberty to the appellants to challenge the said conclusion in the review application or for that matter, by way of a fresh Special Leave Petition. The limited plea taken before this Court was to allow the appellants to re-work the question and answer sheets and revise the merit list and issue fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates. That option has been kept open. It is for the appellants to pursue the same. In other words, the appellants must, in the first place, act upon the decision of the High Court dated 28th November, 2017 whereby the order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has been quashed and set aside. The appellants may then proceed in the matter in accordance with law by passing a fresh, reasoned order. Indeed, while doing so, the appellants may take into consideration the previous inquiry reports as also all other relevant material/documents which have become available to them. [Paras 13 and 14][820-A-B; D-F]

6. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2017 and 25th July, 2018 must fail but with a clarification that the competent authority of the appellant is free to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law. [Para 15][820-G]

P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti (1998) 6 SCC 507 : [1998] 3 SCR 1079 – referred to.