1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11017­11018  OF  2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.30146­30147 of 2018)

(Diary No.30171 of 2018)

U.P. JAL NIGAM & ORS. ….         APPELLANTS

:Versus:

AJIT SINGH PATEL & ORS. ….      RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order

dated 28th November, 2017 in Writ­A No.37143/2017 and 25th

July,  2018  in  Review Application No.2/2018 passed  by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The said writ petition

2

was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein to challenge the

order dated 11th  August, 2017 passed by the Chief

Engineer/Adhisthan­2­1, U.P. Jal Nigam (for short “Nigam”).

The said decision of the Chief  Engineer  was preceded by a

decision of the Board of Directors of Nigam taken in its 166th

meeting held on 26th  July, 2017. It was found that the

appointments made to 113 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil),

5  posts  of  Assistant  Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical)  and 4

posts of Assistant Engineer (Computer Science/Electronics

and Communication/Electrical  and Electronics)  pursuant to

notification dated 19th November, 2016, were void ab initio.  

3. The High Court vide  impugned common judgment and

order dated 28th November, 2017 allowed the said writ petition

and connected matters, essentially, being of the view that the

order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th August, 2017,

was in breach of principles of natural justice. The High Court

also opined that the said order of the Chief Engineer declaring

the appointments of 122 candidates as  void ab initio,  had

failed to record the foundational fact that it was not possible to

3

distinguish tainted and untainted case(s) and that there was

possibility of all of them getting the benefit of  the irregularities

committed in the selection process; and yet hastened to

terminate the appointments of all the 122 candidates by one

order, that too, without giving notice and opportunity of

hearing to the concerned appointees. As regards the

irregularities committed in the subject selection  process  as

noted in the order dated 11th  August, 2017, the High Court

held that individual  notice to the  concerned  appointee  was

indispensable.  

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed Special Leave

Petition (Civil) Nos.5410­5419 of 2018 before this Court. The

same was disposed of vide order dated 16th March, 2018, in

the following terms:   

“ O R D E R Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioners, points out that the petitioners having found out that there were defective questions and incorrect answer keys, the  High  Court should  have permitted the petitioners to re­work the merit list. He submitted that the High Court has gone wrong in insisting for an individual notice in the factual matrix  of this  case. In this regard he has also placed reliance  on  a judgment  of this  Court in  Vikas  Pratap

4

Singh and Others  v.  State of Chhattisgarh and Others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent(s), however, points out that whether the questions were defective or key answers were incorrect are disputed questions and, therefore, liberty should be granted to the respondents to participate in the inquiry. He further submits that the decision of this Court referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners may not apply to the facts of this case.  

Be that as it may, having gone through the impugned judgment, we do not find that the door is yet closed. It is for the petitioners, if they are so advised, to approach the High Court itself for a liberty to re­work the answer sheets on the basis of the corrections, in case the High Court is also of the view that the corrections need to be made.  

The special leave petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.  Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. Pursuant to the liberty granted to the appellants, a

review application came to be filed before the High Court being

Civil  Misc.  Review Application No.2 of  2018. The appellants

raised the following grounds in the said review application:   

“GROUNDS

(I) Because this Hon’ble Court while deciding the matter has not considered the fact that there is malpractice in the selection, however, on the technical ground that opportunity of  hearing was done, therefore,  order  of  selection was set aside and they were directed to reinstate and be paid salary

5

subject to the liberty given to the Authority to pass a fresh order.

(II) Because this Hon’ble Court has not considered the fact that against 113 posts once candidates have called for interview and they were not even eligible for interview and finally out of 113 posts 26 candidates are not even qualifying for interview, therefore, they have wrongly  been called  for interview.

(III) Because  this  Hon’ble  Court  has also not  considered the fact that out of 5 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical),  6  new candidates are  being  found eligible and 4 candidates who have earlier found eligible for interview are not found eligible for interview and 2 candidates out of 5 candidates who have finally selected are not found eligible even for interview, therefore, they cannot be even considered for interview.

(IV) Because this Hon’ble Court has further not considered the fact that for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Computer) 8 candidates  who  were being found eligible for interview are not found eligible for interview and 3 candidates out of 4 candidates who are selected even they are not eligible for interview, therefore, whole selection process is bad.

(V) Because this  Hon’ble  Court  while  passing the  order has directed for reinstatement and consequently the persons who are not eligible for interview they have been permitted to allow for interview.  

(VI) Because the matter has gone before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s) 5410­5419/2018 has directed the present Respondents (Petitioner in  SLP)  may  approach  before the High Court, Allahabad so that proper direction may be given by the Court.

6

(VII) Because while this Hon’ble Court deciding the matter has held that reservation is not applicable against the temporary post,  it is not sustainable in the eye of  law, as reservation is applicable for both on temporary appointment or on permanent appointment.  

(VIII) Because this  Hon’ble  Court  while allowing the  writ petition has further directed to reinstate and make payment of salary, which amount to allowing the persons who are not even qualified for interview, therefore, passing the order for reinstating them and also be paid salary to them  is  not permissible under law.

(IX) Because  whole appointments are temporary against the temporary Posts, therefore, the Authorities have right to pass order, if they are not to continue with the Employees.

(X) Because the selection was cancelled on the ground of malpractice, as whole appointment was made in haste, without proper calculation and checking of marks, without publishing answer key as required and also there is some other allegations for which STF is already making enquiry.”

6. The High Court disposed of the review application on 25th

July, 2018 in the following terms:  

“The Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow and the Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow have both filed an application for the review of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 by which a bunch of these writ petitions were finally decided.

The submission of learned Advocate General of State of U.P. is that the applicants be granted liberty to segregate tainted and untainted candidates in passing a fresh order for which liberty has been given.

7

The order impugned in the writ petitions was of 11.08.2017 passed by the Chief Engineer, Jal Nigam which cancels the entire selection.

In allowing the petition, we have held that the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that the selection as a whole was not liable to be cancelled without undertaking any exercise to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted one's. The court in the end while allowing the writ petitions had permitted the applicants to pass a fresh reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other affected parties keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.

The applicants till date have not passed any fresh order.

In passing the fresh order they may consider each and every aspect of the matter and they do not require any permission of the court for the manner in which they would pass the fresh order.

In view of above, we do not consider that any liberty for the above purpose is needed from the court.

We do not find any apparent error in the judgment and order which is sought to be reviewed.

The Review Application stands disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. In the present appeals, the appellants have assailed the

aforementioned judgment and order passed by the High Court

in the review application as also the main judgment and order

passed in the writ petition, which was the subject matter of

8

challenge in  Special  Leave  Petition (Civil)  Nos.5410­5419  of

2018. These appeals have been filed by the appellants despite

the undertaking given by them before the High Court on 19th

April, 2018 that the direction given in the order of the High

Court dated 28th November, 2017 would be complied with on

or before 15th May, 2018.   

8. The respondents have raised preliminary objections

regarding the maintainability of these Special Leave Petitions.

First, because the impugned judgment and order was already

challenged by the appellants in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Nos.5410­5419 of  2018. The said SLPs were disposed of on

16th  March, 2018  without any liberty to the appellants to

challenge the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2017

afresh. The appellants cannot be permitted to challenge the

self­same judgment by filing successive petitions. If this

objection is upheld, contends learned counsel for the

respondents, the present appeals can be pursued by the

appellants, at best, only in respect of the judgment and order

passed on the review application. In that case, however, the

9

Special Leave Petition solely against the judgment passed on

review application would not be maintainable, in view of the

dictum in  Sandhya Educational Society and Another Vs.

Union of India and Others1.  The respondents  would  then

contend that the appellants cannot be permitted to resile from

the undertaking given to the High Court, especially when the

appellant(s) is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India. Relying upon the order passed by this

Court  on  16th  March,  2018 in  Special  Leave  Petition (Civil)

Nos.5410­5419 of 2018 and the impugned judgment passed in

review application including the order passed by this Court on

20th August, 2018 in the present Special Leave Petitions, the

respondents would then contend that the appellants cannot be

permitted to raise any other ground except the contention that

the appellants ought to be permitted to revise the merit list by

segregating the tainted and untainted candidates with liberty

to pass a fresh order. In other words, the appellants cannot be

permitted to urge any other argument in support of the order

1 (2014) 7 SCC 701

10

dated 11th  August, 2017 passed by the Chief Engineer. For,

that  order  has  already been quashed and set  aside  for the

reasons recorded in the judgment  whilst allowing the  writ

petition filed by the respondents and which reasons

commended to this Court vide order dated 16th March, 2018.  

9. The appellants, however, urge that the disposal of Special

Leave  Petitions  by this  Court  on 16th  March,  2018 will  not

come in the way of the appellants to challenge the common

judgment and order of the High Court dated 28th  November,

2017 passed in Writ Petition­A No.37143 of 2017. Inasmuch

as there is clear indication in the order dated 16th March, 2018

that this Court had not dismissed the special leave petitions;

but acceded to the argument of the appellants and gave liberty

to the appellants to approach the High Court to re­work the

answer sheets on the basis of corrections. It is urged that the

technicalities should not come in the way of the appellants to

persuade this Court to uphold and restore the order dated 11th

August, 2017  passed  by the  Chief  Engineer, as the entire

selection process was replete with irregularities and fraud, for

11

which even criminal action has been initiated against the then

Chairman and other officials including the persons who were

authorised representatives of the agency which had conducted

the online examination, by filing an F.I.R. for offences

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120­B/201 of I.P.C. and

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The counsel

for the appellants stated that the appellants are in the process

of terminating the appointments of all other candidates

appointed under the same selection process who are presently

working with  the appellants.  That has become necessary  in

view of  the  informed opinion given by the experts of Indian

Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad, that

identification and segregation of tainted and untainted

candidates is not possible. The said experts, on examination of

the files and CDs, have reached at the following conclusions,

as recorded in the communication addressed to the appellants

dated 11th September, 2018:   

“Conclusions: I. To identify “tainted” candidates essentially implies identifying those candidates, whose response data may have been modified after the end of the computer­based exam. To

12

perform this assessment, the original response data of the candidates (captured immediately at the closure of the examination window)  along with relevant checksum information is required.  This reference (checksum) information, as per observation 1 above, was neither recorded by the service provider nor communicated to UPJN. Therefore, identification and segregation of tainted and non­ tainted candidates is not possible.

II. In the absence of information  (as per observation 1) and by noting observations 3­4, the authenticity of the data as and  in  the  form provided  (observations 5­6)  cannot  be accepted and/or verified.  

III. The veracity of the entire process is also doubtful in view of observations 7­10.

IV. Considering observation 8 above, it stands to reason that the candidate response files, as submitted by the service provider  were created, rather hurriedly and certainly not as expected. In the absence of any validating information, there is every possibility that these candidate response files (provided on the CDs) might have been doctored.  

Final notes:

All the above observations are based on the implicit condition that all the documents and data shared with the undersigned have a verified provenance, and responses provided by the personnel made available for interaction with the  undersigned on  9th  and  10th  September, 2018  at the UPJN head office in Lucknow, are true.  Additionally – This report uses two technical terms which are being explained below for your convenience.  

 Checksum: A small block of digital data generated by a checksum algorithm such as MD5 (Message Digest 5), SHA­1 (Secure Hash 1), SHA­2, etc. when it operates on a given source data (file). This small block of digital data generated is like a

13

digital fingerprint and is unique to the file it was generated for. In the event that the source file changes or is  modified  in any form, its checksum will change.  

 HTML:  Hyper  Text  Markup  Language is the  basic computer language, used to create web pages.  

I hope that this report, answers the two queries raised in your letter 104/CE (E­2­1) Camp/18 dated 31.8.2018 to your satisfaction.”

Reliance is also placed on the opinion given by the Associate

Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute

of Technology, Kanpur dated 15th  September, 2018,  which

reads thus:   “After going through the pertinent agreements between the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and M/s Aptech Limited and relevant documents, I have the following observations to humbly present.  

A brief chronology of the events is as follows: (i) The examination  was conducted on  December

16, 2016. (ii) After short listing candidates based on the exam

conducted on December 16, 2016, the interviews of the short listed candidates were held between 30th Dec. and 31st Dec. 2016.  

(iii) The final result was declared on January 3, 2017.

(iv) On February 27, 2017, M/s Aptech Limited delivered the result files on several CDs to U.P. Jal Nigam Limited.  

Upon examining the contents of the files presented by M/s Aptech Limited, it appears that the earliest modification date of any file on the CDs is much after December 16, 2016. In a computer­based test, the response of the candidates is uploaded in the main server (in the present case the cloud

14

server) immediately after the completion of the exam. Immediately after the examination is over, each candidate’s response is secured so that interpolation or manipulation is not possible after wards. In the present case, the submitted file was modified after 16th December, 2016 which raises a strong doubt and it cannot be ruled out that response sheets of candidates were not manipulated during this period. Under the present circumstance, it is not possible to independently confirm that response sheets of candidates in the CDs made available are the same as responses made by the candidates on the date of examination. There is no file in the CDs provided by M/s Aptech Limited with the last modification date equal to the day of the examination. Since I  have been  informed that the primary data  on  the cloud server is no longer available, it is difficult for me to corroborate that the data provided on the CDs is an exact copy of the data available immediately upon the completion of the exam.  

No audit trail containing the individual mouse clicks and timestamps of  the choices made by the students has been provided in the CDs. Such an audit trail will make it easier to corroborate that the answers given by the students in the examination is the same as the answer sheet that they were graded on later. Such an audit trail is helpful to settle any discrepancies and challenges that the exam candidates may later raise. Since M/s Aptech Limited has not provided such an audit trail, it is not possible for me to corroborate and  confirm  that there  are  no  discrepancies  between the student’s actual responses and those, which were used for grading.  

Moreover, I am informed that the standard procedures followed in public examinations like JEE (Mains). JEE (Advanced) and GATE, were not followed. It is a customary practice in these exams to publish the answer key  to the exam, invite any objections or rebuttals from the candidates, consolidate these responses,  and subsequently, freeze the answer key. Grading of the answer sheets is done only after such an opportunity has been provided to the candidates. This common practice has not been followed in the present case, which raises doubt as well as apprehension that the response sheets  of individual  candidates  might  have  been compromised. The errors in answer keys of this particular

15

examination may have been reduced or eliminated all together, had such  an opportunity been given before the publication of the results of the computer­based test.  

Considering the lack of primary data with M/s Aptech Limited, it is not possible to independently confirm the authenticity of the provided data on the CD, and hence the segregation of tainted & untainted candidates is not possible.  

This is with response to your letter No. 110/C.E. E­2­1 (camp)/2018, dated 04/09/2018”  

The appellants have placed reliance on the decision in  P.R.

Deshpande Vs. Maruti Balaram Haibatti2  to contend that

despite the undertaking given to the High Court, it is open to

pursue the legal remedy available to the appellants under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.  

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties,

including the counsel for the applicants in intervention

applications. We deem it apposite to first turn to the efficacy of

the  order  of this  Court  dated  16th  March,  2017.  On  a fair

reading of the said order passed by a  two­Judge Bench  (to

which one of us, Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph was a party), this

Court noted the limited grievance of the appellants that in the

2 (1998) 6 SCC 507 (paras 16 & 17)

16

wake of defective questions and incorrect answers given, the

High Court should have permitted the appellants to revise the

merit list. After noting that position, the Court granted liberty

to the appellants to approach the High Court for that limited

purpose. While doing so, no liberty was granted to the

appellants to challenge the impugned judgment dated 28th

November, 2017 afresh before this Court. No such liberty was

sought at that time.  This  position is restated in the order

dated 20th August, 2018 passed in the present Special Leave

Petitions, which reads thus:   

“O R D E R

The only liberty granted to the petitioners and as rightly understood by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State was to segregate the tainted from the untainted as per Order dated 16.03.2018.  

We direct the petitioners to file a report, in a sealed cover, within one month from today, as to what steps have been taken pursuant to the Judgment dated 28.11.2017 passed by the High Court and the order dated 16.03.2018 by this Court in the Special Leave Petition.  

List on 20.09.2018.  

The petitioners may approach the High Court and seek for extension of time.”

(emphasis supplied)

17

One of us (Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph) was a party even to this

order. Upon reading the order dated 16th March, 2018 and/or

along with the order dated 20th August, 2018, it is amply clear

that the liberty granted to the appellants was very limited. It

posits that  no  other  contention was kept  open or  could  be

raised in the review application or in any subsequent

proceedings before this Court. As no liberty had been granted

to the appellants to challenge the judgment of the High Court

dated  28th  November,  2017 afresh, it  would  mean  that the

appellants can pursue the Special Leave petition only against

the decision of the High Court in review application, which the

High Court had rejected for the reasons recorded in its order

dated 25th  July, 2018 (reproduced in paragraph No.6 above).

In  absence  of such  liberty to the  appellants, filing  of fresh

special leave petition against the self­same  judgment is  not

permissible. [See  Vinod Kapoor Vs. State of Goa and

Others3,  Kumaran Silks Trade  (P) Ltd..  (2)  Vs. Devendra

and Others4 and Sandhya Educational Society (supra).]

3 (2012) 12 SCC 378 (paras 9 to 12) 4 (2006) 8 SCC 555 (paras 6, 8 & 9)

18

 11. The respondents have relied upon the dictum in

Sandhya Educational Society (supra), that a Special Leave

Petition only against the judgment in a review application is

not maintainable. Be that as it may, the judgment of the High

Court in review application is a benign one and is certainly not

more adverse to the appellants. For, the High Court has

restated the dictum in its judgment dated 28th  November,

2017 ­ that it would be open to the appellants to separate the

tainted candidates from  the  untainted ones  and to  pass  a

fresh, reasoned order after providing opportunity to the

affected candidates. The High Court has also clarified that the

order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 11th  August, 2017

has been quashed on the sole ground that it was hit by

principles of natural justice, having been passed without

issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the

concerned candidates and also because the said order does

not refer to the fact that an exercise was already undertaken

by the appellants to distinguish the case of tainted and

untainted candidates and arrived at the conclusion that it was

19

not possible to do so, before issuing the impugned order dated

11th August, 2018.

12. The appellants have now relied upon the opinions given

by the experts (Indian Institute of Information Technology,

Allahabad and Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur) as

noted in the report submitted to this Court dated 20th August,

2018. The same were certainly not available to the appropriate

authority before the order was passed on 11th August, 2016.

Indeed, the appropriate authority took into account two

inquiry reports but the same did not evince that an exercise

had already been undertaken to distinguish the tainted and

untainted candidates or that it was not possible to do so, so as

to uphold the decision of declaring the entire selection process

as void. Had the appropriate authority done that exercise and

recorded its satisfaction in that behalf, to be reflected in the

order passed by the Chief Engineer on 11th August, 2017, the

High Court could have then followed the settled legal position

expounded in  Union of India and Others Vs. O.

20

Chakradhar5  ­ that the nature and extent of illegalities and

irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to

be  scrutinized in  each case  so  as to  come  to  a  conclusion

about the future course of action to be adopted in the matter.

Further, if the  mischief played is so widespread and all­

pervasive, affecting the result so as to make it difficult to pick

out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or

wrongfully  deprived of their  selection, in such cases, it  will

neither  be possible  nor  necessary  to issue  individual  show­

cause notices to each selectee. In that case, the only option

would be to cancel the whole selection process and not

limiting to one section of appointees. This view has been

restated in the recent decision in Veerendra Kumar Gautam

and Others  Vs.  Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and Others6,

(also see Joginder Pal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

Others7). The dictum in the two judgments relied upon by the

appellants of  O. Chakradhar  (supra) and  Vikas Pratap

5 (2002) 3 SCC 146 ( paras 7, 8 & 12) 6 (2016) 14 SCC 18 (paras 57 to 59 & 61) 7 (2014) 6 SCC 644 (paras 32 to 36 & 38 to 40)

21

Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others8

will be of no avail to the appellants in the fact situation of the

present case.

13. Suffice it to observe that while disposing of the Special

Leave Petition filed by the appellants on the earlier occasion

vide order  dated  16th  March,  2018, this  Court  has  neither

disturbed the  conclusion reached  by the  High  Court in its

order dated 28th  November,  2017 nor granted  liberty  to the

appellants to challenge the said conclusion in the review

application or for that matter, by way of a fresh Special Leave

Petition. The relevant conclusion of the High Court in its order

dated 28th November, 2017, reads thus:  

“In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order  dated  11.8.2017  has  been  passed in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,  no exercise was undertaken to distinguish the case of tainted and non­tainted candidates to arrive at the conclusion while passing the  impugned order as such the impugned order dated 11.8.2017 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.”

14. The limited plea taken before this Court as noted in the

first paragraph of order dated 16th March, 2018 was to allow

8 (2013) 14 SCC 494

22

the appellants to re­work the question and answer sheets and

revise the  merit list and issue fresh, reasoned order after

providing  opportunity  of  hearing to the  affected candidates.

That  option has been kept open. It is for the  appellants  to

pursue the same. In other words, the appellants must, in the

first place, act upon the decision of the High Court dated 28 th

November, 2017 whereby the order passed by the Chief

Engineer dated 11th August, 2017 has been quashed and set

aside. The appellants  may then proceed in the  matter in

accordance with law by passing a fresh, reasoned order.

Indeed, while doing so, the appellants may take into

consideration  the  previous inquiry reports  as  also  all other

relevant material/documents which have become available to

them. We make it clear that we have not dilated on the efficacy

of the opinion given by the experts of “IIIT Allahabad and IIT

Kanpur”.  

15. In view of the above, the challenge to the impugned

judgment dated 28th  November, 2017 and 25th  July, 2017

must fail but with a clarification that the competent authority

23

of Nigam is free to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance

with law.  

16. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion

either way on the merits of the course of action open to the

appellants against the respondents including against the other

appointees under the same selection process. All questions in

that behalf are left open.  

17. The appeals along with all the interlocutory applications

are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

      .....……………………………...J.

         (Kurian Joseph)

…..…………………………..….J.      (A.M. Khanwilkar)  

New Delhi; November 15, 2018.