The Calcutta High Court, in a recent judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, ruled that railway authorities cannot cancel a duly published promotion panel arbitrarily on vague administrative grounds without providing prior notice to the candidates selected. The court emphasized that authorities are obligated to follow RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which clearly require that candidates must be informed and given an opportunity to respond before any cancellation of results. The Court observed that a selection panel can only be annulled for well-founded, substantiated reasons.

 

The matter arose from the selection process for the post of Goods Guard under the 15% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota, initiated through a notification dated 1st December 2021. The respondents, who were permanent railway employees, participated in this process. Subsequently, a panel comprising 27 successful candidates, including the respondents, was approved and officially published on 8th December 2022, based on merit in the written examination.

 

Following successful medical examinations, the selected candidates were sent for the mandatory training on 20th March 2023. However, while the respondents were undergoing the 50-day training program, the railway authorities issued an office order dated 17th April 2023 cancelling the panel, citing vague “administrative grounds” arising from a complaint and a vigilance enquiry.

 

The respondents challenged this abrupt cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT initially disposed of the matter via an order dated 21st April 2023, directing the respondents to submit a representation and the authorities to reconsider the cancellation and pass a reasoned order. The respondents’ representation was later disposed of on 23rd May 2023, reiterating the cancellation decision. Dissatisfied, the respondents filed a second Original Application before the CAT. This time, the Tribunal set aside the cancellation orders and directed the railway authorities to segregate tainted candidates from untainted ones.

 

Aggrieved by this, the Railway Authorities approached the High Court through a writ petition, asserting that the vigilance report left them with no choice but to cancel the promotions. They claimed that candidates were given notice on 12th April 2023, allowing them an opportunity for a hearing, and that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the cancellation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Dileshwar Kumar vs. Union of India, where a panel cancellation based on a vigilance report was upheld.

 

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure outlined in RBE No. 192 of 2019 and the note below Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which requires prior notice to the selected candidates. Additionally, the railway authorities had not produced the vigilance advice before the Tribunal as required under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The respondents further contended that the Tribunal’s directive for segregation of candidates was unnecessary and that they were entitled to benefit from the promotion process based on their merit.

 

The High Court observed that the communication dated 12th April 2023 amounted merely to an intimation of cancellation, not a genuine opportunity for the candidates to be heard. The notice lacked the investigation report and failed to specify any irregularity, thereby denying the candidates a proper show-cause opportunity.

 

The so-called speaking order dated 23rd May 2023, which was intended to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, was also found unsustainable, as it failed to provide any rationale linking the purported administrative concerns to the cancellation decision. The Court reiterated that assigning proper reasons is mandatory to ensure transparency and accountability in administrative decisions.

 

Importantly, the Court held that the railway authorities violated the mandatory provisions of RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I by failing to provide prior notice to the selected candidates. Consequently, the cancellation of the panel was declared unsustainable. The Court also distinguished the Dileshwar Kumar case, noting that in that case, there were specific irregularities identified, unlike the present matter where the cancellation was based on vague and general administrative concerns.

 

Furthermore, the High Court ruled that the Tribunal’s direction to segregate tainted and untainted candidates was baseless. Since the authorities did not assign any reasons or identify specific malpractices, there was no foundation to conclude that any candidate engaged in wrongdoing.

 

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Vinodan T. and Others vs. University of Calicut and Others, which held that an appointing authority cannot annul a panel of selected candidates during its validity period except for well-founded reasons.

 

Based on the above reasoning, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Railway Authorities and set aside the Tribunal’s direction for segregation of candidates. The judgment underscores the principle that administrative bodies must follow due process, provide prior notice, and assign valid reasons before cancelling a promotion panel, especially when selections are merit-based and candidates have already commenced training.