ORDER 1. THE APPELLANTS BEFORE US ARE THE CANDIDATES WHO HAD APPEARED FOR AN EXAMINATION IN 1989 WHICH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE POST OF COMMERCIAL CLERKS AND TICKET COLLECTORS IN THE RAILWAYS. IT IS THEIR CASE THAT THEY WERE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW BUT WERE ULTIMATELY NOT SELECTED. THEY CAME TO KNOW OF THIS FACT IN 1990 WHEN A LIST OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES WAS PUBLISHED. FOUR OF THEM FILED ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN 1991. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN THESE APPLICATIONS WAS THE ELIMINATION OF THE APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERVIEW. WHILE THE APPLICATIONS WERE PENDING, THE RAILWAYS RECRUITMENT BOARD (RRB) AT GORAKHPUR SOUGHT CLEARANCE FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE ANSWER SCRIPTS, INCLUDING OTHER RECORDS PERTAINING, INTER ALIA, TO THE EXAMINATION IN QUESTION. THE PERMISSION WAS REFUSED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT WHICH FOUND, ON A SCRUTINY OF THE ANSWER PAPERS AND OTHER RECORDS, THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN HOLDING AND EVALUATION OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER INVESTIGATION. IN 1994, THE FIFTH APPLICATION WAS MADE BY ONE OF THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE SELECTION PROCESS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989. IN 1995 THE APPELLANTS FILED TWO APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ONE FOR BRINGING THE VIGILANCE REPORT ON RECORD AND THE SECOND FOR A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT ANSWER-SHEETS. THESE APPLICATIONS WERE ULTIMATELY DISMISSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE MAIN MATTER IN 1997. THE APPELLANTS IMPUGNED THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SAME YEAR. THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT INVOLVED DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT. IN JANUARY 2000, THE APPELLANTS PREFERRED AN SLP BEFORE THIS COURT ON WHICH THIS COURT DIRECTED ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ON 11-5-2000. 2. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE PERSONS WHO WERE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989 AND SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEWS AND WHO ACCEPTED THE POSITION, JOINED THE SERVICE AND HAVE BEEN CONTINUING AS SUCH. 3. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS CANNOT NOW CLAIM TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POST OF COMMERCIAL CLERKS AND TICKET COLLECTOR ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989. FIRSTLY, THEY HAVE NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO BE SO APPOINTED. 3. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANTS CANNOT NOW CLAIM TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POST OF COMMERCIAL CLERKS AND TICKET COLLECTOR ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION HELD IN 1989. FIRSTLY, THEY HAVE NO LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO BE SO APPOINTED. SECONDLY, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE CANDIDATES WHO, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN WRONGLY SELECTED, WERE REMOVED, THE APPELLANTS WOULD BE THE NEXT BEST CANDIDATES TO BE SELECTED. THE HIGHEST THAT THE APPELLANTS CAN CLAIM IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE WAITING LIST. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE LIFE OF A WAITING LIST DOES NOT SURVIVE INDEFINITELY. THE APPELLANTS CANNOT, THEREFORE, SUCCEED. 4. HOWEVER, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MATTER BEFORE THIS COURT, AN ALARMING STATE OF AFFAIRS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED RELATING TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE RAILWAYS. AFTER 1992, WHEN THE PRAYER FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE ANSWER-SHEETS WAS EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED BY AN OFFICER OF THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, AND WHEN SUCH OFFICER HAS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE VERY RECORDS SOUGHT TO BE DESTROYED, COME TO AN ADVERSE CONCLUSION AGAINST SEVERAL SENIOR OFFICERS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING THE 1989 EXAMINATION, THE LEAST THAT COULD BE ACCEPTED OF ANY AUTHORITY, LEAVE ALONE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, WAS THAT SUCH RECORDS INCLUDING THE ANSWER-SHEETS SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT SAFELY. THIS WAS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY WHEN THE MATTER WAS PENDING ADJUDICATION INITIALLY BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THEREAFTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND FINALLY BEFORE THIS COURT. THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE MAIN ALLEGATIONS WERE RAISED IN THE VIGILANCE REPORT WAS H THE THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE RAILWAYS RECRUITMENT BOARD (RRB), ONE P.S. VIMAL. WHILE ACTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1989 EXAMINATION, PUNITIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN ONLY AGAINST THE UNDERLINGS SUCH AS CLERKS, ETC. AS FAR AS P.S. VIMAL HIMSELF WAS CONCERNED NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST HIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECORDS INCLUDING THE ANSWER SCRIPTS REFERRED TO IN THE VIGILANCE REPORT WERE MISSING. ACCORDING TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT THE ANSWER SCRIPTS WERE KEPT ALONG WITH THE CASE TILE AND THE ENTIRE FILE IS MISSING. THIS COURT DIRECTED AN ENQUIRY TO BE MADE INTO THE MISSING ANSWER-SHEETS AND HOW THEY COULD HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE RAILWAY BOARD. ACCORDING TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT THE ANSWER SCRIPTS WERE KEPT ALONG WITH THE CASE TILE AND THE ENTIRE FILE IS MISSING. THIS COURT DIRECTED AN ENQUIRY TO BE MADE INTO THE MISSING ANSWER-SHEETS AND HOW THEY COULD HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE RAILWAY BOARD. FROM THE ENQUIRY REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN TILED BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE (MECHANICAL) ON 15-6-2004 IT APPEARS THAT THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTENTED ITSELF MERELY BY NOTING THAT THE MISSING TILE HAD BEEN SENT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVATE SECRETARY OF THE MEMBER-SECRETARY ON 17-9-1998 AND THAT ACCORDING TO THE PERSONAL PRIVATE SECRETARYS NOTING, THE TILE HAD BEEN SENT BACK TO THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT ON THE SAME DATE. ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE TILES HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE AS TO WHETHER, DESPITE SUCH NOTING, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PHYSICALLY HANDLING THE TILE HAD INDEED MADE OVER THE TILE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON IN THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. IF A SERIOUS ATTEMPT WAS MADE, THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CASE FILE AND ANSWER SCRIPTS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND AND CONSEQUENTLY APPROPRIATE ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS. THE UPSHOT OF THIS SLIPSHOD ENQUIRY IS THAT NO STEPS WHATSOEVER WERE TAKEN AGAINST P.S. VIMAL AND THE CASE WAS CLOSED. NOT EVEN A CHARGE-SHEET WAS ISSUED TO HIM ALTHOUGH IN THE ENQUIRY REPORT TILED ON 15-6-2004 THERE IS THE FOLLOWING PIOUS OBSERVATION: "THE SAVING GRACE IS THAT THE IRREGULARITIES NOTICED IN THE ANSWERSHEETS OF THOSE CANDIDATES ARE CONTAINED IN THE DRAFT CHARGE-SHEET PROPOSED TO BE ISSUED TO SHRI P.S. VIRNAL WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECONSTRUCTED FILE FOR WHATSOEVER FURTHER USE." 5. MR P.S. VIMAL HAS IN THE MEANWHILE CROSSED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION IN 2001 WITHOUT HAVING TO FACE AN ENQUIRY. WE NEED NOT COMMENT ANY FURTHER ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF SHRI P.S. VIMAL EITHER WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL IRREGULARITIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN 1989 OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT DISAPPEARANCE OF THE RELEVANT FILE AGAINST HIM INASMUCH AS THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST SHRI P.S. VIMAL IS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL. WE NEED NOT COMMENT ANY FURTHER ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF SHRI P.S. VIMAL EITHER WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL IRREGULARITIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN 1989 OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT DISAPPEARANCE OF THE RELEVANT FILE AGAINST HIM INASMUCH AS THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST SHRI P.S. VIMAL IS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE ARE COMPELLED TO OBSERVE THAT THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE RAILWAYS APPEARS TO BE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE MESS, WHERE FILES CONTAINING ORIGINAL RECORDS VANISH AND THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE EITHER INCOMPETENT OR UNWILLING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IF THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO KEEP ITSELF IN ORDER, IT IS CLEARLY INCAPABLE OF FULFILLING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT EXISTS VIZ. TO BE AN EFFECTIVE IMPARTIAL INTERNAL MECHANISM TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE RAILWAYS. THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES WILL PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS 10,000 BY WAY OF COSTS TO THE APPELLANT WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM DATE. 6. LET A COPY OF THIS ORDER BE SENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RAILWAYS A RECRUITMENT BOARD (RRB). THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.