Dismissed

C. Aravindhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Apr 2018WP/3287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions challenging the Teachers Recruitment Board's cancellation of the entire recruitment examination for Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges after large-scale malpractices in OMR evaluation. Holding that corruption was pervasive and tainted candidates could not be segregated from non-tainted ones, the court upheld the en masse cancellation and dismissed the petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

C. Aravindhan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11-04-2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.3287, 4000, 4001, 3905, 4155, 4701, 4865 & 4866 of 2018 and WMP.No.4038, 4039, 4921 to 4924, 4802, 4803, 5101 to 5103, 5803 & 5804 of 2018

¶6

W.P.No.3287 of 2018

¶7

1.C.Aravindhan 2.R.Manikandan ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Press News dated 10.02.2018 issued by the second respondent cancelling the entire recruitment examination conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board on 16.09.2017 for the direct recruitment of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges notified in Advertisement No.06/2017 dated 28.07.2017 is arbitrary violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India an vitiated by non application of mind and consequently direct the second respondent to fix an early date for conducting certificate verification for the candidates who have applied for the post of lecturer in Printing Technology in Government Polytechnic Colleges pursuant to Notification No.06/2017 dated 28.07.2017 issued by Teachers Recruitment Board based on the Provisional List of candidates for Printing Technology published on 07.11.2017 and issue appointment orders to the petitioners as Lecturers in Printing Technology in orders

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

to the petitioners as Lecturers in Printing Technology in Government Polytechnic Colleges.

¶11

For Petitioners :: Mrs.Nallini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma

¶12

For Respondents :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader

¶13

W.P.No.4000 of 2018 & 4001 of 2018

¶14

1.G.Annie Lydia Nisvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4000 of 2018 2.S.Vijaya Prabhavathi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4001 of 2018

¶15

Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶16

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents in both W.P.s'

¶17

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record relating to the order/press news of the second respondent issued through his press news dated 09.02.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents to continue the selection process and appoint the petitioner as lecturer in English in any one of the Government Polytechnic Colleges.

¶18

For Petitioner :: Mr.P.EbenezerPaul (in both W.Ps')

¶19

For Respondents :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader (in both W.Ps')

¶20

W.P.No.3905 of 2018

¶21

V.Lakshmikandhan ... Petitioner/Party-in-person

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Vs.

¶24

1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶25

2.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶26

3.Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶27

4.The Commissioner, Directorate of Technical Education (DoTE), 53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.

¶28

5.The Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents

¶29

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned press news published through website by the first respondent on 09.02.2018 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional in respect of Mechanical Engineering Stream/Branch and Consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic College based on the marks secured in the written examination process within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶30

For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Lakshmikandhan (Party-in-person)

¶31

For Respondents :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader

¶32

W.P.No.4155 of 2018

¶33

1.M.Thanigainathan

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

2.A.Kalaimani 3.Saravanakumar R 4.M.Prabha 5.H.Madhurambal 6.Kayalvizhi 7.G.T.Abinaya 8.Prathebha 9.Monikasri 10.R.Vikram 11.S.Sakthiselvan 12.N.Karthick Venkatesh 13.Vannia Raj M. 14.S.Dinesh 15.M A M Mannar Thippu Sulthan 16.M M Mohammed Liyakathali Khan 17.Vignesh K. 18.B.Sivakanth 19.M.Ganeshkumar 20.A.Arun Prasanth 21.Singaravelan R 22.S.Lingeshwaran 23.M.Thanigivel 24.S.Chandru 25.S.Nafeesa Farhana 26.Guna M 27.Abdul Muthalif A 28.Athikesavan S 29.Magesh M 30.Iyappan R 31.Tamizharasan G 32.Balamurugan G 33.Mareeswari K 34.Arvinth C 35.Vijayaraj R 36.R.Rahul 37.A.Darwin Antony Sahaya Vivek 38.Kamesh A 39.Sakthivel R 40.G.Umashankar 41.P.Shanthi Devi 42.S.Hemalatha 43.S.Sumathi 44.V.Annapoorani 45.Saraswathy C 46.S.Kalaimaran 47.Nirmala A 48.Nantha Kumar S 49.Jeyashree J 50.Karthi G 51.Bharathi Priya N

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

52.Subash Chandru V 53.Lenin K 54.Hemavathi M 55.Iswarya P 56.M.Senguttuvan 57.Bhaskar R 58.Rajesh R 59.Savitha R 60.Suganya Lilian 61.Lourdu Raj G A 62.Sivagami S 63.Vidiyal Murasu 64.Poornachandran K 65.Prasanna Kumar O 66.Krishnamurthy V 67.H.Ambika 68.K.Archana 69.S.Karthiga 70.M.Thahaseen Fathima 71.R.Lalidambigai 72.P.Sirenjeevi 73.Dhas Vino S 74.S.Ashok kumar 75.P.Ezhilarasu 76.G.Deepika 77.S.Manoj 78.V.M.Rupilaa 79.Rohinidevi P 80.Preetha R 81.S.Anitha 82.Krishnakumari K 83.S.Subashini 84.K.Sujitha 85.Saravanan M 86.A.Shivarajani 87.M N Rajaprabha 88.T.Sudhakar 89.Arivazhagan C 90.Sivakumar M 91.Sathish Kumar 92.Mani M 93.Vijayakumar R 94.M.Karthikeyan 95.S.Bhuvaneswari 96.Rajalakshmi R 97.Sangeetha K 98.Prabhavathi 99.Karthika P 100.Soundharam S 101.Sathish.S

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

102.Chitra.B 103.Sivagami.M

¶40

... Petitioners

¶41

Vs.

¶42

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Nagar, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3.E.Dhanyrashmi 4.R.Petchi Muthu Prakash 5.Jayasudha 6.S.Meena 7.P.Baby 8.R.Valliammal 9.Kujani.T ... Respondents (Respondents 3 to 9 are impleaded as per order dated 04.04.2018 in WMP No.7945 of 2018 in W.P.No.4155 of 2018)

¶43

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Press News of the second respondent dated 09.02.2018 cancelling the direct recruitment for the post of Lecturers in the Government Polytechnic Colleges notified in Advertisement No.6/2017 dated 28.07.2017 to quash the same and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to proceed with the selection as per the Advertisement No.6/2017 in whose case there is no mistake and by conducting re-certificate verification for all those successful candidates only based on the marks given in the OMRs (Optical Mark Recognition) uploaded by the second respondent and issue appointment orders and issue consequential orders.

¶44

For Petitioners :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy For R1 & R2 :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

For R3 to R9 :; Mr.K.C.Karlmarx

W.P.No.4701 of 2018

Kanimozhi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents

¶52

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Proceedings (Press News) of the respondent issued through website dated 09.02.2018 cancelling the written examination conducted by the respondent board on 16.09.2017 for the Direct Recruitment of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges notified vide advertisement No.06 of 2017, dated 28.07.2017 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Mathematics Lecturer as fully eligible as per the prescribed qualification of the respondent's Board by its Notification in Advertisement No.6/2017.

¶53

For Petitioner :: Mr.S.Deepika For Respondents :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader

¶54

W.P.No.4865 & 4866 of 2018

¶55

1.E.Sasikumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4865 of 2018 2.P.Leela ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4866 of 2018 Vs.

¶56

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶58

2.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents in both W.P.s'

¶59

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Press news dated 10.02.2018 issued by the second respondent cancelling the entire recruitment examination conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board on 16.09.2017 for the direct recruitment of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges notified in Advertisement No.06/2017 dated 28.07.2017 is arbitrary violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and vitiated by non application of mind and consequently direct the second respondent to fix an early date for conducting certificate verification for the candidates who have applied for the post of lecturer in Instrumentation and Control Engineering and Mathematics in Government Polytechnic Colleges pursuant to Notification No.06/2017 dated 28.07.2017 issued by Teacher Recruitment Board based on the Provisional list of candidates for Instrumentation and Control Engineering and Mathematics published on 07.11.2017 and issue appointment orders to the petitioner as Lecturers in Instrumentation and Control Engineering and Mathematics in Government Polytechnic Colleges.

¶60

For Petitioner :: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel (both W.Ps') For Mrs.C.Uma For Respondents :: Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General-VIII Assisted by Mr.C.Munusamy, Special Government Pleader (for both W.Ps')

¶61

Departing from the conventional way of considering the facts at the first instance, this Court would prefer to set out the legal principles which are all settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as by the Constitutional Courts across the country. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356, the legal principles are enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. His Lordship Mr.S.B.Sinha, J. while speaking for the bench said as follows: "If the services of appointees who had put in a few years of service were terminated, compliance with three principles at the hands of the State was

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶63

imperative viz.: (1) to establish satisfaction in regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalities committed, went to the root of the matter, which vitiated the entire selection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of materials were required to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner; (3) whether the sufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the officers in majority had been found to be part of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt."

¶64

In the case of Ashok Lanka Vs. Rishi Dikshit and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 90 once again the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the principles in relation with en masse cancellation. In law, it is permissible to cancel the entire selection process if it is held that the same is tainted to such an extent that it may not be possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones. As, for example, in a case of mass cheating adopted by the students in a board examination, it may be permissible to cancel the entire examination. When selections, however, are carried out not by one agency but by several ones, the principle of en masse cancellation may not apply. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India made a finding that discrepancies in respect of the method of examination or selection process conducted by the State in this regard. It need not be settled when there is a possibility of scrutinizing or otherwise of the candidates who appeared in the examination, then it is preferable to cancel the examination en masse. If there is a clear possibility of the agency then there is no en masse cancellation. Thus, the question to be answered is that whether the facts present requires consideration of these two principles.

¶65

In the case of Hanuman Prasad and Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1996) 10 SCC 742, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶66

"3.It is seen that after the allegations were made that malpractices were committed, the matter was referred to CBI for enquiry. The CBI has submitted its preliminary report which indicated that the malpractices have been committed in writing the examination. /they need not await the final report which would be to take further action against erring officers. Therefore, it is a case where the authorities have taken the decision on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating agency, containing

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

proof in support of the allegations of malpractice committed in writing the examination. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of cancellation does not contain any reasons.

¶69

4.It is then contended that though the selected candidates have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for appointment when they were selected for being appointed. They should be given prior opportunity and also know the reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on para 8 of the Judgment of this Court in Asha Kaul v. State of J&K. It is unexceptionable that when duly constituted selection committee makes recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules; they have a chance to be appointed as they have been selected by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no application for the reason that after the perusal of the report submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority had cancelled the selection so that the regular and proper examination could be conducted giving opportunity to everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given in the case of mass copying. it is not the case where a named candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal."

¶70

In the case of Joginder Pal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644, the relevant paragraphs are extracted here under:

¶71

"32.From the Report of the Committee dated February 08, 2007, constituted on the directions of this Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra), which has been accepted by the High Court, it is apparent that the Committee has not found anything against these 21 persons, in respect of whom we are deliberating on the issue involved. At the same time, on going through the process, the Committee was of the view that the selection process was vitiated and, therefore, the result warranted to be cancelled in its entirety,

¶72

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶73

including that of these non- tainted persons as well.

¶74

The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the entire process could be labelled as vitiated because of purported manipulations, forgery and fraud? Or, to put it otherwise, once the non-tainted persons are segregated from tainted ones, would it still be justified to quash the entire selection, even when non-tainted made into the service because of their merit?

¶75

It was argued by Mr. Raju Ramachandran and Mr. Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that the mandate of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was limited to one aspect only, namely, to segregate the cases of tainted candidates from non-tainted ones, if it was possible. It was their submission that after this task was successfully accomplished by the Committee, there was no occasion to go into the second aspect, which was not part of any direction of this Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra). It was further argued that the findings on two aspects are self- contradictory. Once it was accepted that some of the candidates were innocent, who entered the service by virtue of their merit and not because of any extraneous considerations and these candidates should be segregated as well, such a finding to the effect on the second aspect that the entire selection process was vitiated could not be arrived at.

¶76

We find force in the aforesaid argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in these set of appeals. The two conclusions of the High Court appear to be antithetical. Once it is found that segregating tainted from non-tainted is possible and is achieved also, other conclusion is incompatible with the first one.

¶77

We have already narrated the background in which judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) was rendered by this Court. Those were the appeals filed against the Full Bench judgment in Amarbir Singh (supra) where the Court had held that the action of the Government in cancelling

¶78

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶79

the entire selection process was justified. This very conclusion of the Full Bench was challenged by the appellants in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) with specific plea that it was not a case for cancelling the entire selection process and, in the first instance, the Court should have attempted to find out as to whether cases of the candidates who were tainted could be segregated from those who were unblemished. The court was convinced with the submission. While setting aside the judgment and remanding the case back, the Court went to the extent of holding that by clubbing together tainted as well as non-tainted persons, two unequal classes were clubbed together and it amounted to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was also held that no attempt was made in this direction, namely, whether there was a possibility of segregating the two classes of persons. The Court found that as the relevant records were still available a fair investigation into the whole affair was possible."

¶80

In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. O.Chakradhar reported in (2002) 3 SCC 146, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in paragraph 8 as follows:

¶81

"In our view the nature and the 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 future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is no widespread and all pervasive, 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. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance."

¶82

In paragraph 12 of the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

¶83

"As per the report of the CBI whole selection smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz. right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer-sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶85

typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose any few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so inter-mixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large scale widespread and all pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishna Yadav (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed.

¶86

In the case of Veerendra Kumar Goutam and Others Vs. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and Others reported in 2016 14 SCC 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if there are serious allegations overall selection procedure and the resultant selections made by the Selection Committee and even if the High Court examined some individual cases and found that the candidates are not properly qualified, the entire process can be set aside by the Court. Once the process of selection is tainted, whatever had flowed consequent thereto must also fall along with the process of selection.

¶87

In the case of Ashok Lanka Vs. Rishi Dikshit and Others cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when

¶88

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶89

services of the employees are terminated for aiding and abetting corruption, Court must satisfy itself that the conditions therefore exist. The Court, while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. Only if it is found to be impossible or highly improbable to separate cases of tainted persons from those of non-tainted ones, the entire selection can be terminated or cancelled.

¶90

The legal principles in relation to the appointment is that, appointment can never be claimed as a matter of legal right. The candidates, who appeared in the process of selection, cannot claim appointment as a right. All appointments to the public posts are to be made only under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate. The State, being a model employer, must ensure such an equal opportunity by conducting the process of selection in a free, fair and reasonable manner. The concept of equal opportunity is to be ensured and the same can be done only by following the recruitment rules in force and by conducting the selection process in a transparent and fair manner. Thus, in the event of any malpractice, irregularity or illegality in the process of selection or if any prima facie materials are found establishing such irregularities, illegalities or malpractices, then the State should initiate appropriate action without any delay. In the event of the availability of prima facie factual materials in respect of such irregularity, malpractice or corrupt activities, then the apt course would be to cancel the entire selection. If tainted and non-tainted are unable to be segregated, then it is preferable to cancel the entire selection so as to ensure the correctness in the process of selection. In a large scale selection process, where more than one lakh candidates had participated, it is the duty of the State to ascertain whether such illegalities, malpractices or corrupt activities found or larger in nature and in such an event, the State is justified in cancelling the entire selection.

¶91

Constitutional Courts are certainly aware that some innocent candidates also may affect on account of such decision of cancellation of the entire selection process. However, a striking balance is to be adopted while taking a decision to cancel the entire selection process en masse. The Courts are equally bound to keep in mind that the candidates, who had participated in the process of selection, have no right to claim appointment. In other words, mere participation in the selection will not confer any right on the candidates. It is the prerogative of the Appointing Authorities to take decision in such circumstances where there are materials in respect of large scale corrupt activities in the process of selection.

¶92

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶93

This Court is of an undoubted opinion that participation in the selection alone is the fundamental right of a citizen. Thus, a mere right of participation cannot confer any right to claim appointment. Thus, the State has to assess all the relevant factors while cancelling the process of selection en masse. The State, being a model employer, has to conduct the selection in accordance with the procedures contemplated. Similarly, if the decision is taken to cancel the entire selection process as a whole, then the decision shall be taken only based on certain relevant materials. Though such administrative decisions are the prerogative of the State, the reasonings for such decisions are certainly warranted.

¶94

Facts of the case:-

¶95

Now lets look into the factual aspects to be considered for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. The recruitment notification was issued in Notification No.06/2017 issued on 28.07.2017 by the Teachers' Recruitment Board, inviting applications through On-line mode from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturers (Engineering / Non-Engineering) in Government Polytechnic Colleges for the year 2017-18. Totally 1058 vacancies were notified. 1,70,365 applications were received. Written examination was held on 16.09.2017 in which 1,33,568 candidates appeared. Totally 2110 candidates (Engineering-1391 and Non-Engineering-719) were called for certificate verification on various dates i.e. from 23.11.2017 to 25.11.2017 and had been completed for NonEngineering subjects. Certificate verification for engineering subjects were scheduled on 24.11.2017 but got postponed. At that juncture, complaint of discrepancies in evaluation of OMR sheets were noticed.

¶96

On 11.12.2017 the Teachers Recruitment Board uploaded all the Original Optical Mark Reader answer sheets in the official website of Teachers Recruitment Board and called upon the candidates to submit their objections. The Teachers Recruitment Board found that there are certain discrepancies and more specifically there are fraud in respect of 196 candidates. Meanwhile, the candidates who participated in the process of selection submitted their complaint to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India in respect of illegalities, irregularities and corrupt activities found in the process of selection. The complaint was forwarded to the Teachers Recruitment Board by the Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. The Teachers Recruitment Board had initiated prompt action on receipt of the complaint from the office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India.

¶97

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶98

The Teachers Recruitment Board lodged a criminal complaint against the agency to the Commissioner of Police, CCB and First Information Report (FIR) was registered in Complaint No.6087/CCB/COP.V/2017, 4973A/DC-CCB.I/PE/2017, 1498A/AC CCC/CCB/PE.201. On the basis of the prima facie allegations set out in the First Information Report, which was registered on 21.12.2017 in FIR Cr.No.468 of 2017, the process of investigation was commenced by the Police officials. The case was registered by the Cyber Crime Cell for the offences under Section 465, 468, 471, 417, 201, 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code and 66 r/w. 43 (i) of Information Technology Act 2008.

¶99

On registration of the criminal case in respect of the irregularities and the illegalities found in the selection process, more specifically in the examinations, the Teachers Recruitment Board issued a fresh notification by press note dated 09.02.2018. The said notification issued by way of press note published states that there were certain large scale irregularities and illegalities and to investigate the corruption allegations, one Mr.Srinivasan, I.A.S., has been appointed as Special Officer and therefore, the entire process of selection was cancelled. In view of the appointment of the Special Officer to investigate the corruption allegations, the Teachers Recruitment Board cancelled the examination and further informed that a fresh notification will be issued and the candidates who have already applied for the examination as per Advertisement No.06/2017 dated 28.07.2017 have to apply once again for the examination, but they need not pay the examination fees. New candidates can also apply for the examination. Challenging the said press note, the writ petitions were filed in W.P.(MD) Nos.2942, 3457, 3580, 3862 to 3865 of 2018.

¶100

The W.P.(MD) No.2942 of 2018 was initially filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the Madurai Bench passed a final Order on 22.02.2018. The important paragraphs of the order cited supra are extracted here under:

¶101

"9.It is nobody's case that there was any leakage of the question papers. The applications received from the candidates were scrutinised and hall tickets were issued. Individual Registration Numbers were assigned to the candidates. As many as 1,33,568 candidates wrote the examination on 16.09.2017. It is again nobody's case that there was mass copying or any commission of malpractice. In other words, even according to the Teachers Recruitment Board, the examination was properly conducted. After the examination was over, the OMR sheets written by the candidates were collected from the individual examination

¶102

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶103

centres under seal and deposited in the office of the Teachers Recruitment Board. Again that there was no commission of any malpractice. The OMR sheets written by the candidates were thereafter scanned and stored in Hard Disk and the Hard Disk is retained by the chairman of the Teachers Recruitment Board. It is again not the case of the Teachers Recruitment Board that the said Hard Disk has been tampered with. Original OMR sheets are still available.

¶104

10.As already pointed out, the OMR sheets have also been duly uploaded in the official Website of Teachers Recruitment Board. Copies of the OMR sheets were taken from the Hard disk and given to an external agency for evaluation. In this case, one M/s.Datatec Methodex Pvt Ltd., a Noida based company was entrusted with the task of the preparing the final list for certificate verification. The said agency submitted the final list to Teachers Recruitment Board based on which call letters were sent to selected candidates for certificate verification in the ratio of 1:2.

¶105

11.It is at that stage one Vijay Anandh lodged a complaint with Prime Minister's Office that something fishy had taken place. Thereupon, the said complaint was forwarded by the Prime Minister's Office to the Principal Secretary to State of Tamil Nadu and then to the Teachers Recruitment Board. Thereupon, the Teachers Recruitment Board cross checked the evaluation results. It was ascertained that marks of 196 candidates were fraudulently altered. In this regard, enquiry was conducted and it was ascertained that one Shaik Dawood Nazzar, who was deputed by the said agency evaluated the OMR sheets, prepared merit list, CV list and final list, had indulged in these fraudulent activities for illegal gratification. Thereafter, the Member Secretary of TRB lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. Arrests have been made and the principal accused Shaik Dawood was also taken to police custody and interrogated. The information presently available with Teachers Recruitment Board indicates that there has been a conspiracy involving a large number of persons.

¶106

12.The learned standing counsel/Special Government Pleader therefore emphasises the fact that the Teachers Recruitment Board is at present not in a position to say to what extent there was

¶107

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶108

commission of illegalities. Therefore, it chose to be abundantly cautious and in order to ensure that the recruitment process was completely stain free, it cancelled the entire examination.

¶109

14.The learned standing counsel/Special Government Pleader also contended that there is no vested or accrued right in favour of the petitioners and that therefore he would contend that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. He would also point out that only a few individuals are before this Court and that therefore the decision taken in larger interest may not be interfered with.

¶110

16.In this case, admittedly there was no leakage of the question papers. The conduct of the examination was also not vitiated by any illegality and irregularity. The fraud or irregularity had crept in only at the stage of evaluation. Even there, the entire evaluation process was not tainted. In fact, the Board had correctly located the persons who were beneficiaries of the fraudulent altering of the marks. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that in this case, it is possible to segregate the tainted candidates.

¶111

17.However, the learned standing counsel/Special Government Pleader for the respondents would point out that the investigation is still pending at a very preliminary stage. Therefore, it is not possible to limit the number of tainted candidates. As already suspected, there appears to be a larger conspiracy. But, in any event, the fraud has crept only at the evaluation stage.

¶112

18.This Court is therefore of the view that it is possible to segregate the non-tainted stages of the selection process from the subsequent stage of evaluation. When admittedly the examination was conducted in a proper manner, it is not fair on the part of the Board to make the candidates to sit for examination once again. It is true that the petitioners have no indefeasible right to be selected. They have only been called for certificate verification. No substantive rights have accrued in their favour. But, in this case the issue is to be viewed from another perspective. The question is not whether the rights of the petitioners have been infringed or not. The question is whether the decision of the Teachers Recruitment Board to cancel the

¶113

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶114

entire selection process is fair or not.

¶115

21.Therefore, this Court quashes the decision of the Teachers Recruitment Board to cancel the entire examination. The Board shall proceed from the stage where the mistake crept in. It shall re-evaluate all the answer sheets afresh. This shall be carried out within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Of course, the certificate verification process shall have to be re-done. As a result, all these writ petitions are partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

¶116

The important findings made in the above writ petition are that in paragraph 16...

¶117

"16.In this case, admittedly there was no leakage of the question papers. The conduct of the examination was also not vitiated by any illegality and irregularity. The fraud or irregularity had crept in only at the stage of evaluation. Even there, the entire evaluation process was not tainted. In fact, the Board had correctly located the persons, who were beneficiaries of the fraudulent altering of the marks."

¶118

In Paragraph No.18...

¶119

"18.This Court is therefore of the view that it is possible to segregate the non-tainted stages of the selection process from the subsequent stage of evaluation. When admittedly the examination was conducted in a proper manner, it is not fair on the part of the Board to make the candidates to sit for examination once again".----The question is not whether the rights of the petitioners have been infringed or not. The question is whether the decision of the Teachers Recruitment Board to cancel the entire selection process is fair or not."

¶120

In Paragraph No.21...

¶121

"The Board shall proceed from the stage where the mistake crept in. It shall re-evaluate all the answer sheets afresh. This shall be carried out within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶122

The learned Senior Advocate Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, appearing on behalf of some of the writ petitioners and other respective counsels, appearing on behalf of the remaining writ petitioners, forcibly contended that all the writ petitioners, who approached this Court, are innocent candidates and participated in the process of selection with an ambition to secure public employment. More specifically appointment to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges, the writ petitioners are no way connected with any fraudulent or any

¶123

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶124

other corrupt activities now alleged to have been found by the Teachers Recruitment Board. The learned Senior Advocate proceeded his argument by stating that 196 candidates alone are identified as tainted and all other remaining candidates are non-tainted and they are Engineering candidates and had participated in the process of selection. Out of 1,33,568 candidates, who have participated in the process of selection, 1,058 candidates were selected for the post of Lecturer. In respect of the said 196 candidates, certain fraudulent activities were found in tampering the written examination marks. Thus, such candidates alone to be expelled from the process of selection and in respect of all other selected candidates, the process must be continued and they must be appointed.

¶125

The learned Senior Advocate read the copy of the First Information Report and contended that there is no large scale irregularity, illegality or fraudulent activities. Certain specific allegations are set out in the copy of the complaint by the de facto complainant. More specifically, it is contended that the sealed hard disk containing the scanned OMR images and data were taken to the Chairman and as per the instructions of the Chairman, it was given to the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board on 23.09.2017 itself by Tmt.N.Ananthi, Additional Member, Teachers Recruitment Board and Mr.I.Raghupathy in-charge of the processing company.

¶126

The tentative key answers for all the 15 subjects were uploaded in the Teachers Recruitment Board website on 06.10.2017 through the processing company. In the meantime, Mr.Shaik Dawood Nazzar, representing M/s.Datatec Methodex Pvt. ltd., had done the data validation with the raw data available with them and reported that some mistakes were committed by some candidates in marking/shading of the question paper serial code. The final key answer and orders were given to the processing company for further processing on 31.10.2017. The general merit list and the list of candidates to call for certificate verification in 1:2 ratio were prepared by the processing company and C.V. List was verified from the general merit list by the Board Members and Staff. With the approval of Chairman, the Board issued orders to the processing company on 07.11.2017, inter alia to release the result of all candidates by individual query and to release the list of candidates called for certificate verification. The above list was compared with the list released on 07.11.2017.

¶127

Out of total 1,33,568 OMR answer sheets some discrepancies were found and the report was submitted. As per the report there are discrepancies in the marks of 225 candidates from the C.V. list already published at the time of

¶128

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶129

result and the current mark list after re-evaluation. In the above list there are discrepancies up to 3 marks in respect of 29 candidates which normally occurred due to the mistake done by the candidates and 25 to 104 marks in respect of 196 candidates. Therefore, it is found that the marks of 196 candidates after the written competitive examination were found to be fraudulently altered. So the result published on 07.11.2017 was withdrawn on 11.12.2017 as per the decision of the Board.

¶130

Further it is stated that in the complaint, the petitioner has stated that malpractices were taking place by accepting bribe and two individuals by name Ms.Saranya and Mr.Rajasundram paid bribe to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. By considering the above submission made in the copy of the FIR, the learned Senior Advocate is of the opinion that the case of fraudulent activities are identified in clear terms and therefore, there is no reason to effect an en masse cancellation of the above written examination. It is very much possible to segregate the tainted candidates and the non-tainted candidates. When such possibility is visible on a reading of the entire copy of the FIR, there is no reason for the State to cancel the entire written examination. Thus, the 196 candidates alone are to be penalised and rest of the candidates must be appointed based on their selection. The report submitted by the CCB, Chennai is in relation to certain discrepancies found in the mark sheet and such discrepancies should be identified and specific direction is to be given by verifying the entire examination papers of about 1,33,568 candidates. Such being the factum, there is no reasons for the State to cancel the entire examination.

¶131

The learned Senior Advocate is of an opinion that the State had committed an error in cancelling the examination. Shri.N.G.R.Prasad contended that the Court should not penalise all the candidates, who participated in the written examination. The tainted candidates alone are to be penalised. Thus rest of the candidates are to be appointed in respect of the selection conducted.

¶132

The learned Senior Advocate would further states that such a decision taken by the State is not only arbitrary, but certainly, the candidates, who are absolutely innocent, are penalised.

¶133

The learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram contended that the candidates in Writ Petition Nos.3287, 4862, 4866 of 2018 are belonging to a separate branch and they are not connected with any of these irregularities. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that these writ petitioners are concerned, there is not even a mention in the

¶134

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶135

First Information Report. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.3287 of 2018 belong to the Printing Technology in Government Polytechnic Colleges. In respect of the printing Technology, there is no dispute at all. However, in respect of other branch, five candidates were identified as tainted. Thus, those five candidates alone deserve to be deleted and remaining candidates are to be appointed by concluding the process of selection.

¶136

Shri.Ebenezer Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.4000 & 4001 of 2018 strenuously contended that when there is a certainty in respect of the irregularities found and when there is a possibility of segregation of tainted and non-tainted candidates, there is no reason whatsoever to cancel the entire process of selection and the written examination. The respondents had taken a decision in an arbitrary manner even without providing an opportunity to the candidates appeared in the written examination. No reason has been assigned by the respondents while cancelling the entire written examination. However, such reasonings are required for the purpose of cancelling the selection process en masse.

¶137

The party-in-person Mr.V.Lakshmikandhan, a candidate, who appeared in the written examination, also challenged the impugned order of the cancellation of selection. The party-inperson states that he is a qualified candidate and he participated in the process of selection with an ambition to secure an employment in the State service. He proceeded by stating that he appeared for the examination by burning his midnight lamp and performed successfully. Thus, the entire cancellation affects his prosperity and chances for securing public employment. He asserts that he is absolutely unconnected with any such malpractices or corrupt activities. He further states that he is an innocent candidate appeared in the written examination with complete sincerity and therefore, his right for appointment is to be protected in all respects.

¶138

The learned Additional Advocate General, at the outset, opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. The counter statement filed even before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.2942 of 2018, the respondents had clearly indicated about the First Information Report and the nature of the allegations set out in the criminal complaint dated 14.12.2017, the case registered in Crime No.468 of 2017 dated 21.12.2017 was brought to the notice of the Court. This apart, it was informed to the Court that the investigation was in progress, during the relevant point of time and the respondents were unable to inform regarding the magnitude of the irregularities, illegalities and corrupt activities occurred in the process of selection.

¶139

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶140

The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the counter statement before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court was filed at the preliminary stage of the investigation and therefore, the respondents were unable to provide more informations to the Court in respect of the inputs furnished by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. However, the progress made in the investigation was brought to the knowledge of the Court and the further investigations were also in progress. It was further contended that the Final Report in the investigation is awaited. Unless the Final Report is submitted, the magnitude of the malpractices and corrupt activities cannot be identified. However, the respondents had brought to the knowledge of the Court in respect of the corrupt activities identified during the process of investigation. Further, it was contended that there is no possibility of segregation of tainted and non-tainted candidates in view of the large scale corrupt activities.

¶141

By elaborating the improved factual circumstances aroused subsequently after passing of the order by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD).No.2942 of 2018, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.2942 of 2018, cannot be followed in the present batch of writ petitions in view of the fact that the respondents have made concrete developments in respect of the large scale malpractices and corrupt activities occurred in the process of selection. The Investigating Authorities also provided inputs to the respondents that there were large scale corrupt activities and the corrupt activities commenced even before the written examination and the same crept in even before the commencement of the process of selection. The learned Additional Advocate General said that when the process of hearing was in progress before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the investigations were at preliminary stage. However, as of now, there is a considerable progress and the police officials have given large scale inputs in respect of the corrupt activities. Thus, the respondents are filing a Confidential Report in respect of the preliminary investigations done by the Investigating Authorities.

¶142

This Court also carefully gone through the Confidential Report submitted by the State in respect of the investigations conducted. It is pertinent to note that several money transactions were found and the outsourcing company has tampered the hard disks and the original OMR sheets. Thus, it is very difficult to segregate the tainted and non-tainted.

¶143

It is not only the irregularities and corrupt activities, now after investigation, it is found that even before the commencement of the examination, there were

¶144

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶145

conspiracies to commit such malpractices and corrupt activities. Thus, in the progressed investigation, the authorities found that there is a large scale malpractice and corrupt activities in respect of the process of selection.

¶146

It is pertinent to note that ten persons were arrested. Out of ten persons four persons were employees of the agency who manipulated the hard disk and some scanned OMR answer sheet images. The selection process was outraged by the Teachers Recruitment Board and such irregularities and illegalities were identified from the agency itself. It is contended that the OMR answer sheets were made known to the students even prior to the written examination conducted on 16.09.2017 and therefore, now the investigation authorities brought to the notice of the respondent that the agency who processed the OMR sheets ought to have maintained the data base had committed a large scale of irregularities and illegalities and involved in corrupt activities and several lakhs of Rupees were paid by way of corruption to that agency by some candidates and it is brought to the notice of the authorities at this stage that a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rupees forty eight lakhs only) were transacted, even at the initial stage, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) were transacted. Thus, the situation is to be construed that a large scale of irregularities or illegalities and corrupt activities were found at that stage more specifically when investigations are in progress.

¶147

While considering the entire factual scenario and the counter statement and the reports submitted before this Court, this Court is able to come to a conclusion that there are large scale of malpractices and corrupt activities crept in in the process of selection. The magnitude of the corrupt activities are large in nature and this Court cannot come to a conclusion that segregating the tainted and non-tainted candidates are preferable and possible. Several incidents are found in respect of corrupt activities. The Agency, who had been handed over the task of maintaining the computer based records, committed various irregularities at various stages. Several lakhs of rupees were paid by way of bribe to the employees of those Agencies, ten persons were already arrested and the investigations are in progress further and the Final Report is yet to be filed.

¶148

It is found that several lakhs of Rupees, more specifically Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs were collected from each candidates and the amounts were collected from various persons. The transaction of several lakhs of Rupees were identified by the Investigating Officer on verification of Bank Statements of Account of the persons concerned. Under these circumstances it is not preferable to appoint the candidates who were selected

¶149

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶150

and therefore, the respondents have taken a decision to cancel the written examination, so as to maintain transparency and conduct the examination in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and in the manner known to law.

¶151

The learned Additional Advocate General further brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.No.2639 of 2018, this Court passed an order on 12.02.2018 which is extracted here under:

¶152

"4.Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional

¶153

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, af taking written instructions from the Chairman of the second respondent submitted that the recruitment examination conducted by the second respondent on 16.09.2017 for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges as per Notification No.06/2007 dated 28.07.2047, has been cancelled and the Notification for examination will be issued during first week of May 2018 and the examination will be conducted during first week of August 2018.

¶154

5.The said written instruction also shows that the candidates who have already applied for the examination will have to apply again for the examination, but they need not pay the examination fees and new candidates can also apply for the examination."

¶155

The learned Additional Advocate General made it clear that there are two Judgments and the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has passed an order which is referred earlier. A fresh notification was issued for the purpose of conducting the examination and regarding the fact the writ petition in W.P.No.2639 of 2018 is disposed of. Thus, the petitioners who filed the above writ petition has not been granted with any relief of appointment. Therefore, the two Judgments passed at the initial stage of the investigation cannot be followed in the present batch of writ petitions, in view of the development made by the Investigating Authorities. Conclusions:-

¶156

This Court is of an opinion that the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that if the magnitude of the illegalities and malpractices are found to such an extent and if it is impossible to segregate the tainted and non tainted candidates, then the en masse cancellation can be effected. The fact remains that 1,33,568 candidates appeared in the written examination, out of which 2110 candidates were selected for the certificate verification and out of which 1058 candidates were selected for the notified posts. The Teachers Recruitment Board identified 196 candidates and they were tainted. Now 196 candidates tainted were identified at the time

¶157

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶158

of the registration of the First Information Report by the CCB, Chennai City. However, it is brought to the notice that large scale of corrupt activities were found and it was identified on verification of the bank statements and 10 persons were arrested for the corrupt activities occurred even before the commencement of the examination. Further it is noticed that the malpractice are large in nature and even if 196 candidates are tainted and other candidates are appointed, there is a possibility of further disputes in respect of malpractices and corrupt activities.

¶159

This Court has to consider that if at all the said 196 candidates found to be tainted are deleted from the select list, then also absolutely no justification in denying the opportunity in respect of more than 1,33,000 candidates participated in the process of selection. The principle of equal opportunity in public employment ensured under the constitution cannot be confined to such an extent so as to deprive more than 1,33,000 candidates from getting a fair opportunity of selection. If such a decision is taken to delete only 196 candidates identified at the preliminary stage as tainted, then this Court is afraid that the plight of 1,33,000 candidates, who participated in the process of selection, are denied of their right of equal opportunity in respect of conducting the process of selection in a free, fair and transparent manner. When the large scale of malpractices and corrupt practices were identified by the Investigating Officials, then there is no reason to delete the tainted and allow the remaining to secure appointment. When the corrupt activities are mixed to such a magnitude, then it is certainly not preferable to segregate the tainted and non-tainted. In fact, this Court is of a strong opinion that it is impracticable either for the Investigating Officials or for the Appointing Authorities to proceed with such a process of segregation in a prompt and correct manner, certainly, it is not possible and impracticable. In the event of undertaking the process of segregation, then also there is a possibility of large number of litigations before the Courts. Every candidate, who participated in the process of selection, may claim that he is innocent and unconnected with any corrupt activities. The Courts cannot pave way to such analogous litigations being created by such candidates.

¶160

Under these circumstances, the Courts are bound to draw the factual inferences and the possible ways and means to resolve the disputes. Adopting the pragmatic approach, this Court is of an opinion that segregation of tainted and nontainted in the presence of such large scale irregularities, illegalities, malpractices and corrupt activities, the exercise will become futile and the same will create scope for further litigations and therefore, it is certainly not preferable to

¶161

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶162

effect such segregations, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the investigation revealed many such corrupt activities.

¶163

Progressed investigation revealed large scale illegalities and corrupt activities in the process of selection to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnics. This Court cannot close its eyes in respect of the significant improvements made in the investigation by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai. The corrupt activities did not stop with tampering of the hard disk with the original OMR answer sheets by the Agencies. It went further and now the Police traced out huge monetary transactions by verifying the Bank Account Statements of various persons, who have involved in such large scale corrupt activities. It is not, as if, tainted alone can be penalized in respect of the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the corrupt activities rooted through the veins, then it is impossible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted.

¶164

Corruption is a great evil, spreading like cancer in our great Nation. Corruption is an enemy to the developmental activities. Undoubtedly, the fast development of our great Nation is paralyzed to an extent in view of corrupt activities, more specifically, in public services. The Constitutional Courts across the country, time and again emphasized that there cannot be any leniency or misplaced sympathy in respect of the corrupt activities. In the event of showing any such misplaced sympathy in such cases, the same will cause not only larger implications, the young minds of this great Nation will result in frustrations. The young minds are working hard to achieve their ambitions. If they are fed up with such corrupt activities, the same will end in frustration. Thus, in the event of identifying certain large scale corrupt activities in the process of selection, then the Courts have no option, but to take a decision that fresh selection alone will be the best solution.

¶165

The present selection is in relation to the recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges. Profession of teaching is Noble. Near about 196 candidates were identified as tainted. Further, investigations revealed that the corruption has gone to such an extent and large number of people are involved. Thus, validating the selection, partially will not only create chaos, but will lead to creation of further litigations in respect of the tainted selection. Under these circumstances, the Government has taken a right decision in canceling the selection en masse. Such a decision alone will create some confidence in the minds of the right thinking people. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the Government. This apart, further notification has also been issued in order

¶166

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶167

to conduct a fresh selection in August 2018. It is further stated that the candidates, who had already appeared in the examinations earlier, are also eligible to apply once again in the fresh examination. However, they need not pay the examination fees once again. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the rights of the candidates, who appeared earlier, are also not infringed at all. A mere participation in the earlier examinations will not confer any right for appointment to the candidates.

¶168

In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court do not find any irregularity or illegality in respect of the decision taken by the respondents for the cancellation of the entire selection and to proceed with a fresh selection. Thus, all the writ petitions are devoid of merit and stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶169

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ah/Svn/kak
To
1.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶170

2.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶171

3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009.

¶172

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶173

4.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 5.The Commissioner, Directorate of Technical Education (DoTE), 53, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025. 6.The Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai - 600 009. +1cc to Mr.Row & Reddy, Advocate SR.No.26981 +5cc to Mr.V.Lakshmi Kandhan, Petitioner in person SR.No.26990 +1cc to Mr.S.Deepika, Advocate SR.No.26991 +1cc to Mr.C.Uma, Advocate SR.No.27048 +2cc to Mr.P.Ebenzezer Paul, Advocate SR.No.27003 +1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.27686 W.P.Nos.3287, 4000, 4001, 3905, 4155, 4701, 4865 & 4866 of 2018 SSV(CO) GN(17/05/2018)

¶174

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C. Aravindhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C. Aravindhan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Perumal Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

N.Viswanathan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Vivekananda College of Arts & Vs the Commissioner

Tmt. M. Arokia Rosaly Vs Dr.G. Narendrakumar

S.Natarajan Vs The Managing Director

J.Geena Vs The Principal Secretary /