Dismissed

Rajesh G. S/O. Sri.Prakash Rao G. v. Senior Deputy General Manager (Sdgm)

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022WP/104206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed to quash an order negativing a challenge to the decandidature of railway recruitment candidates. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitions, upholding the CBI's finding of malpractice involving mobile phones and holding that the use of unclean hands bars public employment.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected by dismissing the writ; no appointment in the impugned process allowed.

Rajesh G. S/O. Sri.Prakash Rao G. Vs Senior Deputy… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶3

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 104206 OF 2021 (S-CAT) C/W. WRIT PETITION NO. 101354 OF 2022

¶11

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 104206 OF 2021 (S-CAT)

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

RAJESH G., S/O. SRI. PRAKASH RAO G. AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HOUSE NO.96, CHALUKYA NAGAR, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V VINAYAKA Location: B V DHARWAD Date: 2022.06.04 11:23:01 +0530

¶18

SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SDGM) VIGILIANCE BRANCH GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE, NEW GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE BUILDING, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶21

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶22

CHAIRMAN RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL 2ND FLOOR, OLD GM BUILDING, KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶23

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00447/2019 AND ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 101354 OF 2022 (S-CAT)

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

RAKESH V. GUTTAKULAM, S/O. SRI. VENKATESH AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HOUSE NO.96, CHALUKYA NAGAR,

¶30

GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

¶33

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶34

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶35

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL AND

¶36

SRI. S. S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SDGM) VIGILIANCE BRANCH GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE, NEW GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE BUILDING, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶39

CHAIRMAN RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL 2ND FLOOR, OLD GM BUILDING, KESHAVAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶40

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R1-R3)

¶43

THIS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION

¶44

¶45

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶46

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶47

NO.170/00444/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶48

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY KRISHNA S. DIXIT J., PASSED FOLLOWING;

¶49

ORDER

¶50

These petitions lay a challenge to the Order dated 11.10.2019 made by Bengaluru Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the challenge to decandidaturing of the petitioners for the recruitment on the ground of their culpable conduct, has been negatived. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel resist the petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is constructed.

¶51

2. Brief foundational facts:

¶52

i) Petitioners were two of the candidates in the recruitment frame for the Group-D

¶53

¶54

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶55

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶56

posts, the said process have been began with the issuance of recruitment notice dated 28.09.2013. Written examinations having been completed, and efficiency test having been passed, petitioners were found to be qualified. They also passed through the medical examination. The records of the petitioners were also verified and found correct.

¶57

ii) The 1^st respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2015 requested the CBI to investigate into the rampant malpractice in the examination centre, allegedly perpetrated on 09.11.2016 and 16.11.2014. The CBI after investigation had found the petitioners guilty of the allegation of malpractice. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent issued an endorsement dated

¶58

¶59

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶60

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶61

06.02.2019 to the same effect and thereby

¶62

de-candidaturing the petitioners. The challenge to the same having been negatived by the CAT, petitioners are grieving before the Writ Court.

¶63

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers we decline indulgence in the matter agreeing with the reasoning of the impugned order. The vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of subject notification, the matter could not have been referred to CBI investigation at all is bit difficult to countenance. The said notification is not shown to be issued under any specific provision of law. It is in the form of an administrative order laying down only a general guideline violation of which does not clothe the petitioners with a choate cause of action. Such an instrument does not

¶64

¶65

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶66

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶67

constitute a China Wall against all investigations including the one in question.

¶68

It hardly needs to be stated that in public recruitment, persons participating in the process with unclean hands cannot be favoured, especially when untainted lot is available in the open market. The employing agencies cannot be faltered when they cause some reasonable enquiry when shady deals do occur in the recruitment process, malpractice in the examination being one of them. Those aspiring public employment need to be above board. Where some reasonable enquiry is made by an expert agency like CBI and it reveals malpractice a prima facie attributable to some of the candidates, it is not desirable that they should be inducted into public service. Added, such an enquiry need not be a rowing inquiry. The

¶69

CAT after considering the material on record has denied relief to the petitioners and the same cannot be found fault with.

¶70

¶71

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶72

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶73

Learned CGC appearing for the respondents is

¶74

more than justified in notifying to the Court the following observations of the CBI at paragraph 9 (ii) (34) of the report:

¶75

“9 (ii) (34) During the investigation Shri.Shaju A Fancis, Sr. VO/A, SDGM, South Western Railway, Hubli referred a complaint vide No. G 265/VIG/Pers-II/14/30060 dated 16.07.2015 alleging that two candidates by name (1) Mr. Rajesh G (OBC) s/o Shri. Prakash Rao G, Roll No. 13232608 & (2) Mr. Rakesh V G (SC), S/o Shri. V Guttakulam have been qualified in the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) examination held on 09.11.2014 at St. Joseph’s High School, Jubilee Circle, Dharwad by getting answers of the questions through mobile phones.

¶76

On scrutiny, it was ascertained that Shri.Rakesh was given his mobile number as 9739698759 and Shri. Rajesh G had given his mobile number as 8123531467. Both the mobile numbers were cross checked with the two numbers of the mobile phones i.e., 7204557029 & 7760756210, which were sent answers SMS to various candidates in this case. Out of which, the mobile number 8123531467 of Shri. Rajesh.G had received 4 numbers of SMS on 09.11.2014 from the mobile number 7760756210. This shows that Shri.Rajesh G, the candidate who qualified in the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) examination had received answers SMS from the main conspirators involved in this case. The given mobile number of Shri.Rakesh.V.G, the other candidate did not reflect in the CDR of 7204557029 & 7760756210. However, Shri.Rakesh.V.G might have used some other mobile number for getting the answers SMS. Though a detailed investigation has not done in these instances, prima-facie the allegations leveled

¶77

¶78

WP No. 104206 of 2021

¶79

C/W WP No. 101354 of 2022

¶80

against Shri.Rakesh.V.G and Shri.G.Rajesh, the candidates, who qualified with the answers SMS over mobile phones is substantiated.”

¶81

When no malafide is alleged against the CBI, we

¶82

cannot find fault with the respondents in denying public employment to the petitioners. Despite lengthy submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not impressed that the matter requires a deeper consideration.

¶83

In the above circumstance both the writ petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be rejected and accordingly they are, costs having been made easy. This judgment shall not bor the petitioners from staking their claims for appointment in a fresh recruitment process.

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

RH/SSP

Rajesh G. S/O. Sri.Prakash Rao G. v. Senior Deputy General Manager (Sdgm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh G. S/O. Sri.Prakash Rao G. v. Senior Deputy General Manager (Sdgm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss Sunday Shylla D/O Phillip Nongtdu Vs the Rajiv Gandhi University of Healath Sciences

Smt. Shantawwa W/O Hanamantappa Meti Vs M Gangappa

Pundalikappa S/O Shivappa Uddannavar Vs M Gangappa

Dr Chidanand P Mansur Vs Union of India

Dr Chidananda P Mansur Vs Union of India

M/S Vijayanand Roadlines Limited Vs the State of Karnataka