“6. In the present case, we find considerable substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that having received the complaints on 13.6.2013, prior to the issuance of appointment letters of the appellants-petitioner dated 26.6.2013, the Corporation did not act promptly in getting the complaints examined. The Committee was constituted on 21.8.2013, and on receipt of the report from such Committee, the results were revised on 19.9.2013. In between, on 6.8.2013, the Corporation had advertised 1428 vacancies on the posts of Conductor, which included 89 vacancies, on which the appointees of 2012 selections, in which the appellants had participated and were selected, had not joined. It is submitted that apart from the benefit of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that the services of the persons appointed through competitive examination in accordance with the Rules, should not be terminated on the ground of preparation of erroneous results, for which nothing can be attributed to them, the appellants-petitioners were deprived of the chance of applying in the subsequent recruitment to the posts, which were advertised on 6.8.2013, and on which date, they were working with the Corporation in pursuance of earlier selections.
