J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.7820 OF 2025 1. The Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway Mumbai 2. The Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway, Kingsway Road, Nagpur – 440001 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Kingsway Road, Nagpur – 440001 4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (D)/MIB South East Central Railway, Nagpur 5. Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway, Kingsway Road, Nagpur ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Pratim K Pakhide Aged 52 years, Occupation – technician II diesel loco shed (DLS) Motibagh, Nagpur R/o plot no.152, Sugat Nagar, Nagpur 440014 ...RESPONDENT _______________________________________________________ Ms A.S. Athalye, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent. _______________________________________________________ 2026:BHC-NAG:11969-DB J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 2/8 CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 4, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Anil S. Kilor, J.) : RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Union of India has approached to this Court by way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 30/04/2025, passed in Original Application No.186/2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench Camp at Nagpur, quashing and setting aside the order dated 11/09/2023 cancelling the selection process. 3. The respondent was the original applicant in Original Application No.186/2024. The challenge raised by the respondent before the tribunal was the cancellation of the selection by the petitioners vide impugned communication dated 11/09/2023. It was done in the backdrop of the following facts: J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 3/8 A] The petitioners issued a notification for selection to fill up the post of Junior Engineer in Pay Matrix Level-6. The respondent, being eligible, appeared in the written examination. After publication of the answer key, some of the candidates raised objections regarding certain questions, alleging that they were out of syllabus. Thereupon, the impugned communication was issued cancelling the examination. 4. It is the case of the respondent that without verifying the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint or without assigning any reason in the impugned communication dated 11/09/2023, the examination came to be cancelled. It is further the case of the respondent that the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. It is submitted that the cancellation of selection without any verification of the truthfulness of the complaint amounts to penalising the selected candidates, which is unfair and arbitrary. 5. The learned tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, has recorded following findings: “10. From these guidelines, it is clear that the J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 4/8 selection procedure can be cancelled due to irregularities. It further states that whenever viva voce is also conducted besides written test as a part of selection procedure and it is decided to cancel the viva voce only, then it will not be necessary to cancel the written examination. It further states that however, in case it is decided to cancel the written examination in such a case complete selection procedure shall stand cancelled. The respondents are relying on the last two lines of this circular (Annexure-R3) i.e. "However, in case it is decided to cancel the written examination in such a case complete selection procedure shall stand cancelled" The respondents are reading this letter out of context. It states that when the selection process has progressed up to viva voce examination and viva voce examination has been conducted and it is proposed to cancel only viva voce examination, in that case, written examination need not to be cancelled but where viva voce examination including written examination is to be cancelled, the entire selection process shall stand cancelled. In the case at hand, viva voce was not conducted. Therefore, there was no need for cancellation of the entire selection process. The respondents could have adopted one of the courses indicated above or they could have held supplementary examination. 11. In this view of the matter, we do not find the decision of the respondents to cancel the selection process was proper. Therefore, the order dated 11th September, 2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed with the selection process initiated vide notification dated 22nd May, 2023. J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 5/8 The selection process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 6. This Court recently, in Writ Petition No.5704 of 2026 dated 29/08/2026 (Ravindra s/o Dinkar Ingole and ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.), had an occasion to consider under what circumstances the examination or select list can be cancelled. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has held thus: “71. In the above referred backdrop, if the tests as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356, is applied, we are of the opinion that the majority view is the correct view. Three tests which have outlined in the above referred case; First, there must be a satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material so as to enable the State to conclude that the selection process was tainted. Second, to determine whether the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process, such satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and thorough investigation conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Third, there must be sufficient material to support the conclusion that the majority of the appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt. J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 6/8 72. Similarly, the purpose, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 743, to assess the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones is taken into consideration in this case again the conclusion would be that majority view of the Tribunal is correct view. 73. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bangal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719, have outlined following principles, which read thus: “19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion: • When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity. • The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 7/8 should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable. • Despite the inconvenience caused to candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process. • Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.” 7. By applying the above referred principles and guidelines, if the letter impugned is considered, it is evident that the cancellation of selection in this case is contrary to the above referred well settled principles of law. 8. The impugned letter says that the written examination for selection for the post of JE(D/M) in PML-6 against 25% IMA quota of the Mechanical Department of Diesel Wing was conducted on 07/08/2023. However, the selection was treated as cancelled due to administrative reasons. J.909.wp.7820.25.odt 8/8 9. Thus, it is evident from the language of the impugned order that no reason was assigned by the petitioners to cancel the selection, except on the vague ground of administrative reasons. 10. Thus, we are of the opinion that the selection process was treated as cancelled in a most casual manner and without considering the above referred guidelines and the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India time and again. In the circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the tribunal in allowing the Original Application preferred by the respondent. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 12. The petitioners are accordingly directed to act upon the directions issued by the tribunal as regards the completion of the selection process. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 18:21:46