The Calcutta High Court upheld that any cancellation of a selection panel for railway promotions, even on grounds of alleged irregularities or vigilance reports, cannot be sustained unless affected candidates are given due notice outlining specific reasons, as mandated by RBE No. 192/2019 and principles of natural justice. This decision reaffirms precedent, clarifies existing law, and sets binding authority for future cases within the jurisdiction, directly impacting all administrative selection and promotion procedures in Indian Railways and comparable services.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WP.CT/242/2024 of ANUP MONDAL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0413362024 |
| Date of Registration | 19-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author |
HON’BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (HON’BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD, HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law (Railway Service Selection & Promotion) |
| Questions of Law | Whether cancellation of a declared selection panel for promotions on administrative or vigilance grounds requires prior notice and communication of specific reasons to selected candidates as per RBE No. 192/2019 and the principles of natural justice. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Cancellation of a declared selection panel for promotion in the Railways must be preceded by due notice to affected candidates outlining the specific reasons and alleged irregularities, in compliance with RBE No. 192/2019 and the principle of natural justice. Mere general assertions about “administrative account” or unsubstantiated vigilance reports are insufficient. Orders lacking detailed reasons and opportunity for representation are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Directions to segregate “tainted” and “untainted” candidates must have a factual basis and cannot stand in the absence of identified irregularities. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The applicants, permanent Railway employees, participated in a 2021 selection for promotion as Goods Guard under the 15% LDCE quota, were successful, and sent for training. The panel was suddenly cancelled in April 2023 on the ground of a vigilance complaint, but no specific reasons or evidence were shared. Authorities claimed to have issued a notice, but it did not disclose details or seek representations. Both the alleged show-cause and cancellation orders were challenged before the Tribunal and Calcutta High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court; railway authorities conducting selection and promotion processes in the same jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunal Benches, and potentially broader railway and service law proceedings outside the Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Distinguishes | Dileshwar Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others (MAT 95 of 2009): Held inapplicable where cancellation is not supported by specific, recorded irregularities |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that cancellation of a declared promotion panel requires a prior, specific notice to affected candidates detailing the precise irregularities or grounds for cancellation, not just a vague intimation or general reference to “administrative account.”
- Clarifies that mere reference to vigilance reports or complaints, without disclosure of particulars or supporting evidence, is insufficient to sustain cancellation.
- Highlights that failure to comply with RBE No. 192/2019 and note under Rule 228 of IREM Vol. 1 renders any cancellation unsustainable.
- A general exercise to segregate ‘tainted’ from ‘untainted’ candidates cannot be directed in the absence of a factual finding of specific misconduct or irregularity.
- Orders cancelling selections must assign clear, cogent reasons—mere reiteration or administrative fiat will not suffice.
- This judgment provides binding precedent to challenge arbitrary cancellation of selection panels and can be cited where authorities rely on vague administrative grounds.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the “notice” issued prior to cancellation of the panel and held it lacked specificity, detail, and did not afford the candidates an opportunity of hearing; it was merely an intimation, not compliance with natural justice or RBE No. 192/2019.
- The reasons for cancellation (“administrative account”) were not supported by any stated irregularity or examination of the purported vigilance report; such non-speaking orders are contrary to legal requirements (supported by the Supreme Court in Vinodan T.).
- Railway Board instructions (RBE No. 192/2019) as well as the note under Rule 228 of IREM Vol. 1 clearly require due notice to selected candidates in case selection is to be cancelled for procedural irregularities/malpractice.
- Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules requires authorities to produce documentary support for claims made in their reply; failure to annex the vigilance advice or report undermines the assertion of irregularity.
- Precedent in Dileshwar Kumar distinguished—there, cogent material on record evidenced irregularities, unlike the present case.
- On these grounds, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s invalidation of the cancellation orders but set aside the Tribunal’s direction for segregation of “tainted”/“untainted” candidates on the ground that no factual basis had been established for such an exercise.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Railway Authorities)
- Cancellation of the selection panel was compelled by the findings of a vigilance report revealing irregularities/malpractices.
- Notice was given to the candidates via communication dated 12.04.2023, thereby affording an opportunity and complying with principles of natural justice and RBE No. 192/2019.
- Relied on the judgment in Dileshwar Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others (MAT 95 of 2009), asserting precedent for cancelling panels based on vigilance findings.
- Asserted that the process was fair and procedurally correct.
Respondent (Applicants/Promoted Employees)
- Authorities failed to produce any cogent material or specific justification for the cancellation.
- The notice/communication was merely a general intimation, not a true opportunity for hearing—no show cause or alleged irregularity was disclosed.
- Reliance placed on RBE No. 192 of 2019, which requires due notice to selected candidates if results are to be cancelled.
- Asserted violation of instructions and natural justice, as well as improper denial of promotional benefits already conferred.
- Objected to direction to segregate “tainted” and “untainted” candidates, as no basis or evidence existed for such classification.
Factual Background
The applicants, permanent railway employees working as Station Masters, participated in a departmental selection process for promotion as Goods Guard under the 15% LDCE quota, notified on 01.12.2021. Following the written examination, a panel of 27 successful candidates was published on 08.12.2022. After medical examination, the selected candidates commenced required training. However, during training, the panel was summarily cancelled by the authorities on 17.04.2023, citing a complaint and a subsequent vigilance enquiry, but without disclosing particulars or providing a meaningful hearing. These actions were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, following unfavorable orders, before the Calcutta High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- RBE No. 192/2019—Expressly requires that “due notice should be given to the candidates declared selected” whenever a selection’s result is cancelled on grounds of procedural irregularities or malpractices. The court interpreted this as mandating advance notice with substance, not just form, apprising candidates of specific allegations and granting opportunity to show cause.
- Note under Rule 228, IREM Vol. 1—Reiterates the requirement of due notice to selected candidates upon cancellation.
- Principles of Natural Justice—Cancellation affecting rights of candidates must be preceded by clear disclosure and an effective right to make representations.
- Rule 12, Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987—Respondent authorities must file relevant supporting documents referenced in reply (here, the vigilance report)—failure to do so allowed adverse inference.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; both Hon’ble Justices concurred in the reasoning and conclusions.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court scrutinized the compliance with procedural safeguards in administrative actions, explicitly referencing failure to annex supporting evidence (vigilance report) with authority’s replies.
- The judgment clarified that “notices” must be substantive in both content and opportunity, not mere formalities.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law concerning natural justice and requirement of notice for cancellation of result affirmed and rigorously applied.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Prior decisions upholding cancellation of selection panels are distinguished and held inapplicable where specific reasons or irregularities are not recorded or communicated.