Panel modification valid if based on procedural irregularities and sanctioned by higher authority.

The applicant, Subodh Kumar Gupta, joined the respondents' department on 08.10.1986 as an Assistant Loco Pilot and was successively promoted, finally becoming Loco Pilot (Mail) in 2009.

In 2011, a notification was issued for selection to the post of Loco Inspector in Jhansi Division.

The applicant applied, appeared in the written examination held in July-August 2012, and his name appeared at serial no. 15 on the provisional panel issued on 15.10.2012.

This provisional panel fructified into a regular promotion/posting order dated 17.10.2012, and the applicant joined his promotional post as Chief Loco Inspector (CLI).

In August 2013, the panel was slightly modified, changing the applicant’s merit position from 15 to 16, but he continued as CLI.

However, on 26/27.11.2014, more than two years after his promotion, the respondents issued an order deleting the applicant's name from the select panel and inserting the name of respondent-5, Sri Pawan Kumar Tiwari.

This action was allegedly based on an undisclosed complaint, without prior notice or opportunity to be heard given to the applicant.

The official respondents stated that complaints regarding discrepancies in evaluation led to a re-examination of answer sheets, revealing that the applicant had performed overwriting in question nos. 10, 27, and 29, contrary to instructions.

Consequently, marks were deducted, and his score became 58, the same as respondent-5, who was senior, leading to respondent-5's placement in the modified panel.

The applicant denied any overwriting and noted that the original evaluators had awarded marks.

He also demonstrated via an RTI request that other selected candidates' answer sheets, including respondent-5's, contained overwriting/cutting but were not subject to deduction or dis-empanelment.

The respondents stated that the name of one Shri Bhupendra Kumar Saxena was also deleted from the panel after evaluation.

1. Whether the modification/cancellation of the selection panel and the subsequent deletion of the applicant's name, after his promotion and two years service, was legally permissible.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 26/27.11.2014, deleting the applicant’s name, suffered from a lack of reasoned order, making it impermissible in law as per the Mohinder Singh Gill case.

3. Whether the respondents' action of deleting the applicant's name based on alleged overwriting was fair and non-discriminatory, given similar issues found in other candidates' answer sheets.

The court primarily applied Para 219(1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. I (1989 ed.), which states that a panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended, but if procedural irregularities or other defects are found, it can be amended or cancelled with the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel.

The court also referenced the judgment in *Union of India & Ors Vs. Rajesh P. U. Puthuvalnikathu and another*, which held that wholesale cancellation of a selection process is unwarranted if irregularities can be identified and corrected without affecting the entire process, emphasizing that a practical, pragmatic, rational, and realistic solution should be adopted.

The applicant relied on *Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner* concerning the impermissibility of supplementing reasons for an order through affidavits.

The court found that the panel dated 15.10.2012, from which the applicant was promoted, was provisional and explicitly "subject to modification/final outcome of any court case pending before various Hon’ble Courts and new facts coming to the notice of administration later on".

This provisional nature allowed for subsequent modifications, and the applicant had not challenged the first revision which changed his serial number.

The court recognized the respondents' right to rectify mistakes, stating that "mistake can be corrected at any time and it is required to be corrected at the earliest by following the prescribed procedure".

Regarding the alleged overwriting, the court noted that instructions prohibited evaluation of answers with overwriting/cutting.

When this "mistake came to the notice of respondents," they "rectified it by reducing the marks of the applicant," leading to his removal from the panel.

The court found the respondents' action was in conformity with Para 219 of IREM, allowing amendment of a panel by a higher authority in cases of procedural irregularities or defects.

The court distinguished *Mohinder Singh Gill* by noting that the impugned order itself referenced a "complaint from staff side regarding some anomalies in the selection" leading to the deletion of the applicant's name.

The court found the applicant's contention about similar overwriting in other candidates' papers to be "emphatically denied by the respondents" and did not view the applicant's argument as logical because had there been no overwriting, his initial responses would likely have received fewer marks.

The court's reasoning was also informed by *Rajesh P. U. Puthuvalnikathu*, highlighting that corrective action, even if late, is permissible to rectify irregularities.

It held that the respondents had the authority to amend or cancel the provisional panel based on irregularities discovered, especially as the original panel was provisional.

The court found no procedural infirmity in deleting the applicant's name given the power vested in the higher authority under Para 219 of IREM.

The court also concluded that the *Mohinder Singh Gill* precedent was distinguishable because the impugned order provided a reason for the deletion (complaint regarding anomalies).

The interim order granted to the applicant stood discharged.