Bheem Singh Meena vs HOME AFFAIRS on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):- By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs: - “I. To call for the record; and thereafter, to admit the instant O.A. in favour of Applicants, and against the Respondents arraigned herein.

II. To allow the O.A. after hearing the Respondents if they wish to be heard and set aside and quash the impugned Termination Orders (Annexures A-1 to A-13) purported to have been issued under the CCS (Termination of Services) Rules, 1965 with consequential benefits as may be permissible under the law and to further direct the Respondents to treat the Applicants to be on duty for the material period during which they have been prevented to attend the duties.

III. To award the cost of the present proceedings to the Applicants.

IV. To pass any other and Further order/s which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem to be fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. As stated by the applicants, they were appointed as Statistical Investigator Grade-II (Group „B‟) in the office of respondent No. 4 pursuant to the recruitment processes undertaken for the 2019 and 2021 selection years. The applicants were selected after undergoing the prescribed selection process and after repeated verification of their educational qualifications and supporting documents by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) as well as respondent No. 4. The prescribed qualification for the post was a degree from a recognized University in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects at the graduation level. The applicants had studied Accountancy and Business Statistics (ABST) as part of their graduation curriculum from

NEETU SHARMA

Universities in Rajasthan. According to the applicants, the concerned Universities treated ABST as comprising Statistics as a subject at the graduation level. In respect of the 2019 selection, the applicants‟ documents were called for and verified by the SSC from September 2021 onwards. In respect of the 2021 selection, the applicants appeared before the SSC between 14.01.2023 and 31.01.2023 and produced their qualification documents, which were also verified and accepted. The applicants of the 2021 selection were subsequently directed to furnish certificates from their respective Universities confirming that they had studied Statistics at the graduation level, which certificates were duly submitted and accepted. Thereafter, offers of appointment were issued to the applicants of the 2019 selection on 22.10.2022 and to the applicants of the 2021 selection on 16.05.2023. The documents of the applicants were again verified by respondent No. 4. The applicants of the 2019 selection were issued appointment letters on 10.11.2022 and joined service on 11.11.2022, whereas the applicants of the 2021 selection were permitted to join between July and August 2023. Subsequently, on 10.04.2023, the respondents constituted a High- Powered Committee to examine whether the subject described by the Universities in Rajasthan as Accountancy and Business Statistics constituted the study of Statistics at the graduation level. Thereafter, on 11.07.2023, the respondents initiated further verification and sought clarification from the concerned Universities regarding the applicants‟ qualifications. The concerned Universities thereafter furnished clarifications. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, confirmed on

NEETU SHARMA

17.07.2023 that the applicants had studied Statistics as part of the ABST group in their B.Com. course. Likewise, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Shekhawati University confirmed that Statistics had been studied as one of the subjects for all three years as part of the Accountancy and Business Statistics course. According to the applicants, similar confirmation was also furnished by Rajasthan University, Jaipur. 2.1 Despite the aforesaid verification and confirmation, the respondents subsequently formed the view that the applicants did not possess the requisite qualification of having studied Statistics as a subject at the graduation level. The applicants contend that the said issue had already been considered by this Tribunal in Ruby and Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors., O.A. No. 2324/2021, decided on 22.02.2023, and Sudha Vs. Union of India and Ors., O.A. No. 2686/2023, decided on 19.04.2024, wherein, according to them, the respondents‟ interpretation concerning ABST had not been accepted. The applicants continued to discharge their duties, with the applicants selected in 2019 serving from November, 2022 and those selected in 2021 serving from July, 2023. The applicants assert that there was no allegation of misconduct, indiscipline or lack of devotion to duty against them and that the dispute was confined to the interpretation of their educational qualification. However, vide separate orders dated 17.09.2024, the respondents terminated the services of the applicants under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. According to the applicants, the termination orders were passed without issuing any show-cause notice or affording them an opportunity to

NEETU SHARMA

explain or defend their qualifications. The applicants further contend that no one month‟s notice was given to them and that no salary/emoluments in lieu of such notice were paid. The applicants further contend that the termination orders contained allegations concerning their educational qualifications and thereby became stigmatic in nature. They assert that, once the respondents relied upon alleged deficiencies, false declarations, or irregularities in their educational qualifications, such matters could not have been dealt with merely by resorting to termination under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules without following the prescribed procedure. The applicants also rely upon the Government instructions governing termination of temporary employees, particularly the requirement that a termination order under Rule 5 should not disclose the reasons for termination and should be issued by the competent appointing authority in the prescribed form. They contend that these requirements were also not complied with in the present case. 2.2 Aggrieved by the termination orders dated 17.09.2024, the applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking, inter alia, quashing of the impugned termination orders and restoration of their services with consequential reliefs. The applicants have also relied upon the interim order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in Prachi Garg Vs. Census, wherein, in a similar matter concerning the termination order dated 17.09.2024, operation and implementation of the termination order was stayed prima facie on the

NEETU SHARMA

ground of non-compliance with the one-month notice requirement under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

4. Mr. Anoop Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that Fundamental Rights of applicants of equality before law and equal protection of law and the right to the life and liberty among, others is being continuously infringed and the applicants have no other efficacious remedy to seek and get justice but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The law is above everyone else and law must always remain so. 4.1 The State cannot discriminate against applicant nor differentiate between its employees at the whims and the fancy of the vested interests. The applicants have exhausted all the administrative remedies as available to them and have no other efficacious remedy available to them. 4.2 The instant O.A. is being filed by applicants all of whom are similarly placed and are aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, all being the same for setting aside and quashing of the illegal and arbitrary termination of services of the applicants as done by the respondents vide their Orders dated 17.09.2024 under rule 5 (1) of The CCS (Termination of Services) Rules, 1965 based on the illegal cancellation

NEETU SHARMA

of “Offer of Appointment” and “Order of Appointment” that has already ran its course and were no longer in operation, or even in existence and having been functus officio could not have been withdrawn or cancelled and without affording any opportunity to applicants to either Show Cause or to defend their position and in gross contempt of the Order/Judgment dated 22.02.2023 of this Tribunal in Ruby and Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission of India and Ors. in O.A. No. 2324/2021 and Order/Judgment dated 19.04.2024 Sudha Vs. UOI and Ors. in O.A. No. 2686/2023 and jurisdictional High Court judgment dated 28.02.2024 in GNCTD and Ors. Vs. Virender in W.P. (C) No. 12696/2023, passing stigmatic Order accusing applicants of impersonation, falsification of records and public documents and even forgeries when neither stipulations of those rules were complied with by Respondents [as held by Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, Interim Orders dated 23.09.2024, O.A. No. 1090/2024, titled as Prachi Garg Vs. Census and in gross violation of extant Standing Instructions of the Govt. of India [MHA OM No. 39/14/56 - Estt. (A) dated 22.06.1956 and MHA OM No. 4/1/65-Ests. (C) dated 30.03.1967]. 4.3 It is admitted fact that the conduct of the applicants have been held to be satisfactory and they have been disciplined and devoted to duty in offices and respondents have no other grievances against them expect the issue of their having studied the subject Statistics at Graduation level as a subject and where Respondents continue to hold despite having been twice overruled by this Tribunal that the subject

NEETU SHARMA

“Accountancy and Business Statistics” (the ABST for short) was not the study of Statistics as a subject and when both the Staff Selection Commission and the respondents No. 4 has verified the degrees of respondents repeatedly and accepted the same to be correct, and it has been only on a change of opinion that the same has been held by the respondents not to be as per prescription, and not acceptable. 4.4 Rule 5 (1) of The CCS (Termination of Services) Rules, 1965 mandates issuance of one month Notice before actual termination can be made by the Govt. but in the case of the applicants, respondents did not comply with that and had straight away issued actual Termination Orders terminating the services of applicants, thus, in violation of applicable law. 4.5 Although, in certain contingencies the rule permits for waiver of the Notice of one month, neither the respondents opted for the waiver as no such stipulation was made in the impugned Orders, as the conditions contingent for such waiver did not exist nor such waiver could have been made as applicants all through remained completely disciplined, sincerely dutiful and entirely compliant to orders of their superiors and had accepted the impugned Termination Orders on 17.09.2024 as served by respondents and that is why respondents chose not to opt for the waiver of Notice of one month as that would have rendered their case as unsustainable on merits.

NEETU SHARMA

4.6 For easy reference, Rule 5 of The CCS (Termination of Services) Rules, 1965 is being extracted and reproduced by applicants herein below:- “5. Termination of temporary service.

(1) (a) The services of a temporary Govt. servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Govt. servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Govt. servant; (b) the period of such notice shall be one month. Provided that the services of any such Govt. servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Govt. servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing the immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.” 4.7 The respondents terminated services of applicants making stigmatic allegations [factually wrong and incorrect and false that applicants did not study Statistics at Graduation level when they had studied Statistics and degrees were verified by the SSC and Respondent No. 4 and got confirmed from concerned Universities thus accusing the Applicants to be guilty of impersonation, falsification of records, and even forgeries of public and private records thus an enquiry was required to be held to prove allegations, and to afford to the Applicants as a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend their position as has been held by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the cases of GNCTD and Ors. Vs. Virender, in W.P. (C) No. 12696/2023, judgment dated 28.02.2024 and Neena Lath Gupta Vs. UOI Through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and Anr. in W.P. (C) No. 10385/2021, DOJ 01.05.2023 (2023) DHC 2944 as respondents despite the strict bar by the Govt. not to mention the reasons for taking

NEETU SHARMA

recourse to termination of the temporary employee/s; the Respondents have mentioned those reasons. 4.8 The Recruitment Rules, 2019 for posts of applicants prescribes its qualification as “a degree in any subject from a recognized University with Statistics as one of subjects” but that was enhanced by respondents in Selection Notices as study of Statistics in all 3 years (for 2019 Selection) and study of Statistics in all 6 Semesters (2021 Selection) when applicants had truthfully disclosed that they studied Statistics as one of subjects at graduation level which is called by Universities in Rajasthan as the ABST and it is nobody‟s case that applicants impersonated or played any fraud or had misrepresented; and when concerned Universities had on requisitions of respondents confirmed that applicants studied Statistics at graduation level called by them "the ABST", and degrees of applicants were repeatedly verified by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and accepted to be as per requirements. 4.9 The respondents having violated G.Is. rendered Termination Orders to be stigmatic taking that out of domain of CCS (Termination of Services) Rules, 1965 nor the Appointing Authority issued Orders being necessary:- “(2) When action is taken as under Rule 5 to terminate the services of a temporary employee, the order of termination, which should be passed by the appointing authority, should not mention the reasons for such termination.” [MHA OM No.39/14/56-Estt.(A) dated 22.06.1956.]

NEETU SHARMA

4.10 The Termination Orders are not in prescribed Forms as is necessary to be done under the rules of The CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965:- “(5) (i) The period of one month should commence from the date the notice is served on or tendered to, the Government servant.

(ii) The Govt. of India, have standardised the proforma to be used for termination of services of temporary Govt. servants under rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Forms I and II are meant for use in cases where the appointing authority is other than the President of India, whereas Forms III and IV are to be used in cases where the appointing authority is the President of India (see Annexures I to IV).

(iii) Ordinarily when a Govt. servant is actually in service, there would not be any difficulty in serving the notice on him personally or tendering in the presence of some other officer, if he refuses to accept the same. In the cases where it is apprehended that service is likely to be evaded, e.g. when the officer is on long leave, service should be terminated forthwith with an offer to pay a month's salary in lieu of notice as provided in the Rules.” [MHA OM No. 4/1/65-Ests. (C) dated 30.03.1967] 4.11 This Tribunal has held interpretation of respondents that the ABST as taught by Universities of Rajasthan does not amount to study of Statistics to be wrong [judgment dated 22.02.2023 in Ruby and Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission of India and Ors. in O.A. No. 2324/2021; and Orders dated 19.04.2024 in Sudha Vs. UOI and Ors. in O.A. No. 2686/2023 and which has not been overturned by superior Courts and the respondents misquoted the Universities that Universities said that the applicants did not study Statistics at graduation level and issued the termination orders terminating services of applicants terminating Offer of Appointment being no longer subsisting.

NEETU SHARMA

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

5. Mr. Ashish Rai, learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 25.07.2025 on behalf of respondents, submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit, as the applicants did not fulfil the essential educational qualification prescribed under the relevant Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Combined Graduate Level Examination Notifications for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II. It is submitted that the prescribed qualification requires a Bachelor's Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects from a recognized University or Institute, with Statistics having been studied in all three years/six semesters of the graduation course. 5.1 Learned counsel submits that the applicants were initially appointed on a provisional basis pursuant to the recruitment process, subject to satisfactory verification of all documents and information furnished by them. The provisional offer of appointment dated 22.10.2022 and the subsequent appointment letters expressly stipulated that the appointment was subject to verification of the documents and that the services could be terminated if any information or declaration furnished by the candidates was found to be false or unsatisfactory. The applicants accepted the said terms and conditions and, therefore, cannot claim an indefeasible right to continue in service notwithstanding their failure to fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria.

NEETU SHARMA

5.2 Learned counsel further submits that, after the appointment, the applicants' educational qualifications were examined in detail, including their mark sheets and degree certificates, and clarification was sought from the concerned universities. The clarifications received from the respective universities established that the applicants had not studied Statistics as a subject throughout all three years/six semesters of their graduation course. In particular, the University of Kota, vide its communication dated 12.07.2024, clarified that applicant Ms. Chanchal Sharma had studied Business Statistics only in Paper-II of B.Com Part-I and that the subject did not form part of the curriculum of B.Com Part- II and Part-III. Thus, the university‟s clarification does not support the applicants‟ claim of possessing the requisite educational qualification. 5.3 Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is founded upon the prescribed eligibility conditions and the clarifications furnished by the competent universities and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The respondents are required to adhere strictly to the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification and cannot relax or disregard an essential qualification in favour of an individual candidate. Any departure from the prescribed criteria would compromise the uniformity and fairness of the recruitment process and may prejudice other candidates who were required to satisfy the same eligibility conditions. 5.4 Learned counsel further submits that the applicants' reliance upon the cases of other candidates, including the proceedings relating to Ms.

NEETU SHARMA

Sudha and Ms. Ruby and Others, is misplaced. The eligibility of each candidate has to be examined in the light of the applicable recruitment notification and the facts and educational records of the individual concerned. The fact that relief may have been granted in another matter, on its own facts and circumstances, does not confer a right upon the present applicants to claim appointment or continuation in service contrary to the prescribed educational qualification. 5.5 Learned counsel also draws attention to the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of SSC & Ors. Vs. Ruby & Ors., as referred to in the counter affidavit, wherein the eligibility conditions prescribed in the relevant CGLE Notification and the clarification concerning the requirement of studying Statistics throughout the graduation course were considered. It is submitted that the said judgment supports the respondents' stand that the requirement is intended to ensure that candidates possess the necessary academic foundation for the post and that the clarification does not introduce a new eligibility criterion but explains the existing requirement. 5.6 Learned counsel submits that the applicants' services were terminated by invoking the proviso to Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Under the said provision, the services of a temporary Government servant may be terminated forthwith, subject to the applicable conditions, and the Government servant is entitled to the prescribed amount equivalent to pay and

NEETU SHARMA

allowances in lieu of notice. In the present case, the respondents submit that one month's salary in lieu of notice has already been paid to the applicants. The impugned action was thus taken under the applicable service rules and in accordance with the conditions governing their provisional appointments. 5.7 Learned counsel further submits that the termination orders are not punitive in nature and that no disciplinary enquiry was required merely to verify whether the applicants fulfilled the essential educational qualification for appointment. The action was taken upon verification of the relevant documents and receipt of clarification from the concerned universities. The respondents have not sought to impose any disciplinary penalty but have acted upon the applicants' ineligibility for the posts in question. 5.8 Learned counsel submits that the applicants cannot derive any enforceable right merely from the fact that they were provisionally appointed or permitted to discharge duties for some period. The appointment was expressly conditional upon satisfactory verification of their educational qualifications. Once the verification established that the prescribed eligibility requirement was not fulfilled, the respondents were justified in taking action in accordance with the terms of appointment and the applicable rules. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents prays that the Original Application, being

NEETU SHARMA

devoid of merit, be dismissed and that the impugned action taken by the respondents be upheld. REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicants filed a rejoinder on 07.08.2026 and submitted that they were selected through the regular recruitment process conducted by the SSC and were appointed only after the respondents had undertaken scrutiny of their educational qualifications and supporting documents. In this regard, learned counsel draws attention to the communication dated 10.04.2023, whereby a committee of senior officials having a statistical background was constituted to examine the issue concerning the prescribed educational qualification. The applicants submit that their qualifications were examined before their appointments were issued and they were thereafter permitted to join their respective posts. 6.1 Learned counsel submits that the respondents cannot disregard their own scrutiny and verification process and subsequently terminate the applicants after allowing them to join service. It is pointed out that the RTI reply dated 25.07.2023 recorded that the matter was under scrutiny of educational qualifications in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed in the SSC notification. The applicants rely upon the contemporaneous correspondence and the committee proceedings to contend that the issue had been examined by the department before the appointments were made.

NEETU SHARMA

6.2 Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders are not orders of termination simpliciter but are punitive and stigmatic in nature. The respondents have allegedly attributed deliberate concealment of educational qualifications, violation of appointment conditions and fraudulent conduct to the applicants. Such findings, according to the applicants, attach stigma to their service record and could not have been recorded without affording them an adequate opportunity of hearing and following the procedure prescribed by law. 6.3 It is contended that the applicants were appointed against substantive vacancies through the regular recruitment process and were serving as probationers. The respondents could not, under the guise of terminating their services, pass orders founded upon allegations of misconduct, deliberate suppression or fraud without complying with the applicable constitutional and legal safeguards. The applicants, therefore, challenge the invocation of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, in the facts of the present case, and submit that the impugned action is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 6.4 Learned counsel submits that the applicants have not suppressed any material fact concerning their educational qualifications. Their mark sheets and other educational documents were available for scrutiny during the recruitment and appointment process. The applicants maintain that they never represented that they had not studied Statistics in any of the relevant years; rather, the dispute has

NEETU SHARMA

arisen because of the respondents‟ interpretation of the prescribed qualification. 6.5 It is further submitted that the respondents have placed reliance upon selective communications received from the universities while failing to place the complete correspondence and the relevant committee report on record. The applicants rely upon the communications collectively annexed as Annexure-35 to contend that the universities had initially furnished information supporting their eligibility and that subsequent clarifications were obtained after repeated communications from the respondents. The applicants dispute the manner in which the subsequent university responses were procured and request that the complete correspondence and the report of the committee that examined their qualifications be considered. 6.6 Learned counsel emphasises that the eligibility condition in the recruitment notification uses the expression “Statistics as one of the subjects” and requires that Statistics should have been studied throughout the prescribed period of graduation. According to the applicants, the notification does not expressly stipulate that a separate paper bearing the title “Statistics” must have been passed in each year or semester in the manner now insisted upon by the respondents. It is submitted that the eligibility condition must be interpreted in accordance with its actual language and the academic records and clarifications issued by the respective universities.

NEETU SHARMA

6.7 Learned counsel further submits that the applicants‟ case is distinguishable on its own facts from the cases relied upon by the respondents, including the matter concerning Ms. Ruby. The applicants contend that their educational qualifications were obtained from different universities, namely the University of Rajasthan, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, the University of Kota and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Shekhawati University. They submit that their eligibility must be examined on the basis of their respective syllabi, marksheets and university records rather than by mechanically applying a decision rendered in a case involving a candidate from another university. 6.8 It is also submitted that the recruitment rules governing the post provide for relaxation of the prescribed qualifications at the discretion of the SSC or the competent authority. The applicants rely upon the relevant recruitment rules and subsequent recruitment notifications placed on record to contend that the respondents ought to have considered the applicable rules and the scope of relaxation before taking the extreme step of terminating their services. 6.9 Learned counsel further points out that the applicants have, in the meantime, acquired postgraduate qualifications in Statistics. Although the applicants' principal case is that they possessed the requisite qualification at the time of recruitment itself, their subsequent academic achievements are also relied upon as an additional circumstance relevant to the consideration of their case.

NEETU SHARMA

6.10 Learned counsel submits that the applicants had made career choices and relinquished other employment opportunities on the strength of their selection, appointment and subsequent joining after scrutiny of their qualifications. Copies of the appointment offers received by the applicants from other departments have been placed on record as Annexure-36 and Annexure-38. The applicants contend that the subsequent termination has caused serious prejudice to them, particularly when they had acted upon the respondents‟ decision to appoint them. 6.11 In view of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the impugned termination orders be quashed and set aside, with consequential reliefs as prayed for in the Original Application. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to restore the applicants‟ services and extend the consequential benefits admissible to them in accordance with law. 6.12 Learned counsel accordingly submits that the Original Application deserves to be allowed, as the impugned action is challenged both on the ground of the applicants‟ eligibility under the recruitment notification and on the independent ground that the termination orders are punitive and stigmatic, having been passed without following the procedure required by law. 6.13 Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgments (i) Judgment dated 06.03.2000 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of V. P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in

NEETU SHARMA

(2000) 2 SCC 239; (ii) Judgment dated 28.08.2024 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282; (iii) Order/Judgment dated 10.02.1999 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyenra Nath Boase National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 750/1999; (iv) Judgment dated 04.12.2025 of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmikant Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC 1385; (v) Order/Judgment dated 20.11.2024 of Hon‟ble High Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Anil Thomas, in W.P. (C) No. 16089/2024; (vi) Order/Judgment dated 01.05.2023 of Hon‟ble High Court in the matter of Nina Lath Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., in W.P. (C) 10385/2021; (vii) Order/Judgment dated 30.05.2023 of Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in the matter of Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan & Anr. Vs. Shivnarayan Datta Raut & Anr., in W.P. No. 5998/2019; (viii) Order/Judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., in Writ Petition (C) No. 13898/2016; (ix) Order/Judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., in Writ Petition (C) No. 9460/2024;

(x) Order/Judgment dated 29.05.2025 of this Tribunal in the matter of

NEETU SHARMA

Pravesh Kumar Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors., in O.A. No. 2738/2023 & batch.

ANALYSIS

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

8. It emerges from the record and pleadings that the applicants were appointed as Statistical Investigator Grade-II (Group „B‟) pursuant to the recruitment processes for the selection years 2019 and 2021, after verification of their educational qualifications by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and the respondents. The prescribed qualification for the post was a degree from a recognized University with Statistics as one of the subjects at the graduation level. The applicants had studied Accountancy and Business Statistics (ABST) during their graduation from Universities in Rajasthan, which, according to them, included Statistics as a subject. Pursuant thereto, the applicants selected in 2019 joined service on 11.11.2022, while those selected in 2021 joined between July and August 2023. Subsequently, the respondents constituted a High-Powered Committee on 10.04.2023 to examine whether ABST fulfilled the prescribed qualification and, on 11.07.2023, sought clarifications from the concerned Universities. The Universities, including Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner, and Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Shekhawati University, confirmed that Statistics had been studied by the applicants as part of their graduation curriculum.

NEETU SHARMA

However, the respondents ultimately formed the view that the applicants did not possess the requisite educational qualification. The applicants contend that the issue had already been considered by this Tribunal in Ruby and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Others, O.A. No. 2324/2021, decided on 22.02.2023, and Sudha Vs. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 2686/2023, decided on 19.04.2024.

9. Aggrieved by the separate termination orders dated 17.09.2024, issued under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking quashing of the impugned orders, reinstatement in service and consequential reliefs. They contend that the termination orders were issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing and without complying with the requirement of one month‟s notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. They further contend that the orders are stigmatic in nature, as they relate to alleged deficiencies in their educational qualifications, and that the respondents could not have resorted to termination under the aforesaid Rules without following the prescribed procedure.

10. The following issues arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the applicants possessed the essential educational qualification prescribed for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II at the relevant time;

NEETU SHARMA

(ii) Whether the respondents were justified in revisiting the applicants‟ eligibility after their documents had been verified and they had been permitted to join service;

(iii) Whether the impugned termination orders dated 17.09.2024 are termination simpliciter or orders founded upon allegations having civil and service consequences, thereby requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice.

11. We now proceed to answer the question nos. (i) and (ii) of Para 10 above i.e. (i) Whether the applicants possessed the essential educational qualification prescribed for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II at the relevant time; and (ii) Whether the respondents were justified in revisiting the applicants‟ eligibility after their documents had been verified and they had been permitted to join service. The essential qualification prescribed for the post is not in dispute. The controversy concerns the interpretation of the expression “Statistics as one of the subjects” and the requirement that the subject must have been studied throughout the prescribed period of graduation. The applicants contend that ABST, as taught by the Universities in Rajasthan, includes Statistics and that the concerned Universities themselves have confirmed that Statistics formed part of their graduation curriculum. The respondents, however, rely upon subsequent clarifications received from the Universities to contend that the applicants did not study Statistics in every year or semester as required under the recruitment notifications. In matters concerning public employment, the eligibility conditions

NEETU SHARMA

prescribed in a recruitment notification must ordinarily be applied uniformly to all candidates. Neither the recruiting authority nor the appointing authority can dispense with an essential qualification merely because a candidate has successfully participated in the selection process or has already been appointed. At the same time, the prescribed qualification cannot be interpreted in a manner that introduces a condition not contemplated by the applicable recruitment rules or notification. It is equally necessary to distinguish between the nomenclature of a subject and its actual academic content. Whether ABST satisfies the requirement of having studied Statistics cannot be determined merely from the title of the subject. The relevant syllabus, course structure, mark sheets and authenticated clarifications issued by the concerned Universities are material for arriving at a proper conclusion. In the present case, the applicants rely upon communications issued by certain Universities confirming that Statistics was included in the ABST course, whereas the respondents rely upon subsequent clarifications, including the communication dated 12.07.2024 issued by the University of Kota in respect of Ms. Chanchal Sharma. The latter communication, as described in the pleadings, indicates that Business Statistics was studied in B.Com Part-I but did not form part of the curriculum in Parts II and III. The aforesaid material indicates that the academic position may not necessarily be identical in respect of all the applicants. The applicants belong to different Universities, and their respective syllabi and academic records may differ. Consequently, a uniform conclusion regarding the eligibility

NEETU SHARMA

of every applicant cannot be reached solely on the basis of the nomenclature ABST or a clarification relating to one particular candidate. We are also conscious of the fact that the applicants rely upon the decisions of this Tribunal in Ruby and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Others, O.A. No. 2324/2021, decided on 22.02.2023, and Sudha Vs. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 2686/2023, decided on 19.04.2024. The respondents, on the other hand, rely upon the subsequent judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SSC & Others Vs. Ruby & Others. The effect of the aforesaid judicial decisions must be examined in the light of their operative directions, the issues actually decided and the applicability of the findings to the present applicants. The mere fact that an earlier decision was rendered in a matter concerning ABST does not, by itself, establish that every candidate possessing such a degree necessarily fulfils the prescribed qualification. Equally, a decision concerning the qualification of one candidate cannot be applied mechanically to another candidate without examining the relevant academic records and the precise requirement applicable to that candidate. 11.1 The material reproduced in the present pleadings does not set out the complete operative directions of the judgment dated 17.03.2025 or the complete syllabi and university-wise findings concerning each applicant. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to record a conclusive finding that all the applicants either possessed or lacked the prescribed qualification merely on the basis of the rival assertions.

NEETU SHARMA

11.2 We accordingly hold that the respondents were entitled to verify the applicants‟ eligibility even after appointment, particularly where the appointments were expressly subject to verification. However, such verification had to be based on the applicable recruitment conditions and reliable academic material, considered individually in respect of each applicant. The fact that documents had earlier been verified is a relevant circumstance but cannot, by itself, confer eligibility where an essential qualification was not actually possessed on the relevant date.

12. The applicants have placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the SSC and the concerned appointing authorities had scrutinized their documents before issuing appointment letters. They submit that, after permitting them to join and discharge their duties, the respondents could not reverse their earlier decision merely on the basis of a subsequent change of opinion. The submission deserves consideration. An administrative authority is expected to act consistently, fairly and transparently. Where a candidate has disclosed the relevant qualifications truthfully and has been appointed after scrutiny by the competent authorities, any subsequent adverse decision must be founded upon objective material and a correct interpretation of the applicable eligibility conditions. 12.1 Nevertheless, verification at the time of recruitment does not preclude the competent authority from correcting an error subsequently discovered. The requirement of possessing an essential qualification is not waived merely because the recruiting authority initially accepted the

NEETU SHARMA

candidate's documents. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to secure continuation in a post for which the essential qualification was not possessed. The decisive question, therefore, is not whether the respondents had verified the documents earlier, but whether the subsequent decision was based upon a proper assessment of the applicable recruitment criteria and the individual academic records of the applicants. 12.2 We also find that the respondents cannot treat the mere existence of ABST as sufficient proof of ineligibility without examining its academic content, nor can the applicants claim automatic eligibility merely because their Universities used that nomenclature. The issue must be resolved on the basis of the actual curriculum and the applicable recruitment notification. 12.3 We, therefore, do not accept either of the extreme propositions that prior verification conclusively bars further scrutiny or that subsequent verification automatically validates every adverse conclusion reached by the respondents.

13. In so far as question no. (iii) i.e., (iii) Whether the impugned termination orders dated 17.09.2024 are termination simpliciter or orders founded upon allegations having civil and service consequences, thereby requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice; is concerned, the applicants contend that the impugned orders are not termination simpliciter but contain allegations concerning their educational qualifications, false declarations, concealment and

NEETU SHARMA

fraudulent conduct. They rely upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in GNCTD & Others Vs. Virender, W.P. (C) No. 12696/2023, decided on 28.02.2024, and Neena Lath Gupta Vs. Union of India & Another, W.P. (C) No. 10385/2021, decided on 01.05.2023. 13.1 The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the termination orders were issued on account of the applicants‟ alleged failure to fulfil the prescribed educational qualification and were not intended to impose any disciplinary penalty. 13.2 Though the Impugned Order(s) dated 17.09.2024 was issued separately for all the applicants. It is seen that the Impugned Order(s) contain the similar contents and for facility of reference the Impugned Order(s) dated 17.09.2024 is quoted as follows:- “Subject: - Cancellation of Offer of Appointment issued vide letter no. A-12011/1/2022-Estt./129195/2023 dated: 16.05.2023 and Appointment Order issued vide. letter no.- A-12011/1/2023- Estt./I/141569/2023 dated: 26.07.2023 to Shri Bheem Singh Meena for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II-regarding. Sir, I am directed to refer to the above subject and to state that Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has forwarded your dossiers to the Office of Registrar General, India (ORGI) for processing for appointment to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II, a post in level 6 of the pay matrix (Rs. 35400-112400) vide its letter No- 2/1/2022-Num-CGL 2021 (C33) dated 29.03.2023 with the advice to verify the particulars/documents of each of the candidate(s) as prescribed in the Recruitment Notice, for the said purpose, available on Commission’s Website: http://ssc.nic.in and to take further action in this regard.

2. With the approval of the Competent Authority in the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India (ORGI), your dossier was forwarded to the Directorate of Census Operations (DCO), Rajasthan, vide letter No. A-12011/08/2018- Ad.II dated 09.05.2023, with the direction to adhere to the relevant rules and advice of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC)

NEETU SHARMA

for completing the further requirements regarding your joining to the said post. Thereafter, DCO, Rajasthan, issued a provisional offer of appointment to you for appointment to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II in Level 6 (Rs. 35,400–1,12,400) of the Pay Matrix, vide letter dated 16.05.2023, subject to certain terms and conditions (attached as Annexure-I). It is seen that the said Provisional Offer of Appointment dated 16.05.2023 provides the following conditions: Para 2: “Your appointment will be purely on a temporary basis and until further orders.” Para 3: “Your services will be terminable on one month's notice from either side in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without assigning any reasons. The Appointing Authority, however, reserves the right to terminate your services forthwith or before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to you of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof.” Para 14: “If any declaration given or information furnished by you is proved to be false, or if you are found to have wilfully suppressed any material information, you will be liable for removal from service and other action as the Government may deem necessary.”

3. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that the appointment to any post has to be processed and finalised in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the advertisement for the said post, and the advertisement is sacrosanct for that purpose. It is noteworthy that Para 8.3.1 of the Notification issued by the SSC for CGLE-2021, pertaining to the above-mentioned post provides “Bachelor's Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects from a recognised University or Institute. The candidates must have studied Statistics as a subject in all three years or all six semesters of the graduation course.”

4. It is imperative to mention that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 13688/01, decided the matter vide order dated 06.12.2001, as under: “...It is a settled rule of law that the terms and conditions of brochures are binding and must be adhered to by all concerned. The obligation placed upon an applicant/candidate by the brochure has to be discharged in the form and manner prescribed therein.” Further, in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: “We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well-settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be

NEETU SHARMA

conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved.”

5. You unconditionally accepted the aforesaid offer of appointment, along with all the terms and conditions stipulated therein. As part of the subsequent essential requirements, your documents were to be verified, and a medical examination was to be conducted to ascertain your fitness before joining. Accordingly, after the medical examination, your Appointment Order was issued vide letter dated: 26.07.2023, and thereafter, you joined the office of DCO, Rajasthan, on 28.07.2023, subject to verification of your educational qualifications/certificates, etc., and fulfilment of the prescribed requirements.

6. As per the essential requirements elaborated above, the relevant documents/certificates relating to your educational qualifications were examined in the aforesaid context. Upon comprehensive examination and scrutiny of your dossier, the relevant Mark sheets, and the Degree of graduation course it is observed that the documents provided by you do not clearly establish your candidature for the said post in clear terms vis-à-vis requirement in the said Notification of SSC dated 23.12.2021 (CGLE- 2021) warranting further examination for clarity in the matter. Accordingly, it was decided that your educational qualifications needed to be certified/verified by the concerned university. Hence, the matter was referred to your university, i.e., University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the said university, in its certification/verification report, stated that you have not studied Statistics as a subject in all three years or all six semesters of the graduation course, as required under the SSC Notification for CGLE-2021.

7. In view of the above, it is evident that the educational qualifications possessed by you do not meet the eligibility criteria notified in the SSC Notification for CGLE-2021. It is also evident that you never intimated this fact to this office, namely, that you did not fulfil the educational qualifications prescribed for the said post, and that you deliberately concealed this information from the office. This constitutes a serious and specific violation of the terms and conditions of the Offer of Appointment issued to you and unconditionally accepted by you.

8. Relevant Provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 1 (a) “The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant.”

(b) “The period of such notice shall be one month.” Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and, on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount

NEETU SHARMA

of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

9. After proper and careful examination of all the facts placed on record, the certification received from your university, the relevant provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Competent Authority deemed it proper, fair, and justified to cancel the Offer of Appointment and the Appointment Order issued to you. Accordingly, the Offer of Appointment bearing letter No. A- 12011/1/2022-Estt./III/2919, dated 16.05.2023, and Appointment Order No. A-12011/1/2023-Estt./I/141369/2023, dated 26.07.2023, issued to you for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II, Level 6 of the Pay Matrix, in DCO, Rajasthan, is cancelled with immediate effect and accordingly, your services are terminated with immediate effect under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.”

13.3 It is settled that the nature of an order of termination must be determined by examining its substance and the circumstances in which it was issued, rather than merely the terminology employed by the authority. A termination order which is innocuous on its face and is issued in exercise of a contractual or statutory power may ordinarily be treated as termination simpliciter. However, where the order is founded upon allegations of misconduct, fraud, deliberate concealment or other blameworthy conduct, and such findings form the foundation of the termination, the order may acquire a punitive or stigmatic character. 13.4 The distinction between the foundation and the motive for termination is material. A bona fide assessment that a candidate does not possess the prescribed educational qualification is not, by itself, a disciplinary finding. The appointing authority must be permitted to

NEETU SHARMA

verify whether the candidate meets the essential eligibility criteria. Such verification does not invariably require a disciplinary inquiry. 13.5 The position, however, would be different if the authority proceeds beyond determining eligibility and records a finding that the candidate has deliberately falsified documents, committed fraud or made a dishonest declaration. Where such allegations constitute the foundation of the action and carry adverse civil or service consequences, the authority cannot ordinarily avoid the procedural safeguards applicable to punitive action merely by invoking Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 13.6 In the present case, the complete text of the individual termination orders has not been reproduced in the material forming the basis of this draft. The applicants allege that the orders contain stigmatic allegations, while the respondents characterise them as termination simpliciter. 13.7 We accordingly hold that the impugned orders must be examined individually to determine whether they merely record the termination of temporary service or attribute fraud, concealment, falsification or other blameworthy conduct to the applicants. If the orders are founded upon such allegations, the respondents cannot sustain them merely by describing them as orders under Rule 5. Conversely, a bona fide determination of ineligibility, without any punitive finding, would not automatically attract the requirement of a disciplinary inquiry.

NEETU SHARMA

14. The applicants have placed on record the certificates/mark sheets evidencing the qualifications acquired by them, which, as per their version, conform to the eligibility qualifications prescribed for the posts in question. Details of such qualifications are as under:- S. No. Applicant University mentioned in the verification/termination record Graduation subject / ABST particulars

Bheem Singh Meena University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Bhumika Swami Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner B.Com; ABST group.

Svapnil Kumawat University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Drashti Khandelwal University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Meenakshi Meena Not conclusively identifiable from the extracted particulars ABST/Statistics claimed; individual subject details not specified.

Mahima Malhan Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner ABST/Statistics claimed as part of graduation.

Madhu Pancharia Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner ABST/Statistics claimed as part of graduation.

Pooja Sharma Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Shekhawati University ABST; the University is stated to have confirmed Statistics as a subject in all three years.

Vikas Mittal University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Neha Sharma University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Harsh Gupta University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Graduation degree; ABST/Statistics is the subject in dispute.

Chanchal Sharma Not conclusively identifiable from the extracted particulars ABST/Statistics claimed; individual subject details not specified.

15. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362, held that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are to be decided by the employer. The Court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer. Questions of equivalence of qualifications also fall

NEETU SHARMA

outside the domain of judicial review. Where the advertisement is ambiguous or contrary to the applicable rules, the matter may be remitted to the appointing authority for consideration in accordance with law. 15.1 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs. Anit Kumar Das, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 80, reiterated that the employer is competent to determine the relevance and suitability of educational qualifications for a particular post. Courts are not the appropriate forum to assess the expediency, advisability or utility of qualifications prescribed by the employer. 15.2 The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the present proceedings concern the termination of persons appointed pursuant to a public recruitment process. While the applicants have a legitimate interest in the continuation of their employment, such interest must be balanced against the corresponding obligation of the recruiting authority to ensure that all candidates satisfy the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for the posts in question. The recruitment process must be governed by the principles of fairness, transparency and equal treatment, and no candidate can be permitted to continue in service merely on the basis of an appointment if the requisite eligibility conditions are not fulfilled. At the same time, the question of eligibility must be determined by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the terms of the notification, without arbitrariness or discrimination.

NEETU SHARMA

15.3 The determination of whether the applicants possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the posts in question falls within the domain of the respondents, being the appointing authorities. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the question of whether the applicants possess the requisite qualifications, leaving the same to be adjudicated by the competent authorities of the respondents in accordance with the applicable rules and the terms of the recruitment notification.

16. The applicants‟ prior selection, appointment and service cannot be disregarded as irrelevant. At the same time, those circumstances cannot substitute for the prescribed qualification. The question of eligibility must be decided according to the applicable recruitment conditions and the academic records of each applicant, without arbitrariness or discrimination.

17. Likewise, the power to terminate temporary service under Rule 5 cannot be exercised in disregard of the conditions prescribed by that rule. Nor can that provision be used as a device to impose a penalty on an employee while avoiding the safeguards applicable to punitive action.

18. We further observe that the present O.A. concerns several applicants appointed in different selection years and possessing qualifications from different Universities. The material available for consideration, as reproduced in the pleadings, does not establish that every applicant is identically situated in respect of the precise subject

NEETU SHARMA

studied, the relevant academic years or semesters, the terms of appointment, the language of the termination order and payment of salary in lieu of notice. These matters require applicant-wise verification.

19. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to direct unconditional reinstatement of all the applicants merely on the basis of prior document verification. Equally, it would not be appropriate to uphold every impugned termination order without establishing that the prescribed qualification was correctly applied and the statutory procedure was followed.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The respondents shall undertake an applicant-wise review of the educational qualifications of the applicants, with reference to the recruitment notification applicable to the respective selection year, the relevant recruitment rules, the individual mark sheets of the concerned University, and the authenticated clarifications issued by such University.

(ii) While undertaking the aforesaid review, the respondents shall consider the judicial decisions relied upon by both parties, including the decisions in Ruby and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Others, O.A. No. 2324/2021, Sudha Vs. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 2686/2023, and the judgment dated 17.03.2025 passed by the

NEETU SHARMA

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in SSC & Others Vs. Ruby & Others, to the extent applicable to the facts of each applicant.

(iii) The respondents shall verify from the relevant service and payment records whether the amount payable under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was duly paid to each applicant whose services were terminated forthwith. Any amount found payable but remaining unpaid shall be released in accordance with law.

(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, separately addressing the material issues applicable to each applicant, within a period of 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

21. We clarify that the above directions do not amount to a finding that every applicant possessed the prescribed educational qualification or that every termination order is necessarily punitive. Those questions shall be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules, the individual records and the findings recorded herein.

22. The prayer for unconditional reinstatement with consequential service benefits is not granted at this stage. The applicants' entitlement to further relief, if any, shall depend upon the outcome of the exercise directed above and the consequences flowing from the applicable service rules and law.

NEETU SHARMA

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. Pending M.A. (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Rajinder Kashyap)

(R. N. Singh) Member (A)

Member (J)

/neetu/

NEETU SHARMA