Participation of a Close Relative in Selection Committee Vitiates the Recruitment Process Due to Real Likelihood of Bias

The applicant was engaged as a Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) on 29.06.2015.

The selection was conducted by a three-member committee which included the applicant’s father, Shri Rahmat Ullah, the then Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices.

Although the father requested the Postmaster General for instructions due to his son's participation, he proceeded with the appointment before receiving a reply to meet a June 30 deadline.

Following complaints of irregularities, a review revealed that the applicant had failed to disclose his relationship with the committee member in his application (Column No. 9).

Furthermore, it was discovered he pursued two regular courses simultaneously in different cities (Bareilly and Allahabad).

Consequently, his services were terminated on 06.10.2017 under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

1. Whether the selection process was vitiated by bias due to the participation of the applicant’s father in the selection committee.

2. Whether the applicant's termination under Rule 8 of the GDS Rules, 2011, without a full departmental inquiry, was legally sustainable.

3. Whether the suppression of material facts and discrepancy in educational qualifications justified the termination.

Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which permits termination of a Sevak with less than three years of service via one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof.

Rule 4 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, prohibiting Government servants from using their influence to secure employment for family members.

Doctrine of "likelihood of bias" established in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, which mandates that a selection committee member must withdraw entirely if a close relative is a candidate to ensure transparency.

The Tribunal reasoned that the father's involvement in the selection committee created a "reasonable apprehension of bias," rendering the entire selection process void regardless of whether actual bias was proven.

The Tribunal noted that the father's haste in finalizing the appointment without awaiting clarification from the Postmaster General violated canons of justice.

Regarding the procedure, the Tribunal found that the applicant was served specific notices (16.05.2017 and 26.05.2017) and provided an opportunity to reply; thus, principles of natural justice and Rule 4(3) of the GDS Rules were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that since the applicant had served less than three years, the authorities were within their right to invoke the "termination by notice" provision under Rule 8, especially given the concealment of his father's identity in the application and the improbable simultaneous educational courses.

The interim order was vacated, and the termination order dated 06.10.2017 was upheld as the applicant was provided with the requisite one-month TRCA plus DA in lieu of notice as per Rule 8.