Reversion for administrative errors is illegal absent employee fraud or adherence to natural justice.

The three applicants were serving as Senior Clerks in the Stores Department of the North Central Railway

Pursuant to a notification dated 30.09.2011, they applied for the post of Depot Material Superintendent (DMS)

Following a selection test on 24.12.2011 and the declaration of results on 10.02.2012, the applicants were declared successful and posted as DMS on 18.02.2012

Subsequently, based on an internal inquiry into a complaint regarding irregularities in the selection process, the respondents issued an undated Office Order (Est. 86 of 2012) and a letter dated 12.10.2012, cancelling the entire selection process and reverting the applicants to their original posts as Senior Clerks

The applicants challenged these orders, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice and citing their continued service on the promoted post for several years due to interim judicial protection

1. Whether the wholesale cancellation of a selection process and the subsequent reversion of successfully appointed candidates is legally sustainable when the alleged irregularities (evaluation errors) are not attributable to fraud or misrepresentation by the candidates

2. Whether the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for a hearing or a detailed inquiry before reverting the applicants

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem), noting that administrative actions entailing civil consequences require due notice

It relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. [2024] 1 S.C.R. and Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494, which established that innocent beneficiaries of an irregular selection should not be disturbed if they were not complicit in the irregularity and have served for a significant duration

The Tribunal further applied the Segregation Principle from Arun Kumar v. Union of India (OA No. 125/2020), holding that authorities must distinguish between "tainted" and "non-tainted" candidates rather than cancelling an entire selection

Finally, it noted RBE No. 192/2019, which mandates serving due notice to selected candidates before cancelling a selection due to procedural lapses

The Tribunal observed that the respondents cancelled the selection solely due to "mistakes in evaluating answer sheets" following a complaint by an unsuccessful candidate

The court reasoned that such errors are curable through re-evaluation and do not justify the cancellation of the entire process, especially since there was no evidence of mass malpractice, paper leaks, or fraud by the applicants

The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants had been performing their duties as DMS for nearly 14 years and were on the verge of retirement (with Applicant No. 3 already retired)

Relying on Vikas Pratap Singh, the court held it would be "inequitous" to make the applicants suffer for the examiner's faults

The Tribunal found the "show-cause" provision in the impugned order to be an "empty formality" as the decision to revert had already been effectively taken without a regular inquiry

It distinguished the respondents' precedents regarding mass copying, noting that the facts here involved identifiable individual service rather than a tainted pool

The court held that the respondents erred in cancelling the selection without segregating tainted candidates or proving fraud by the applicants

The respondents were directed to allow the applicants to continue in the DMS post with all consequential benefits as if the impugned orders were never issued

For superannuated applicants, the respondents must provide all applicable consequential benefits within three months