Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Umesh Kumar vs General Manager N C Rly on 16 March, 2026
RESERVED ON 27.02.2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 16th day of March, 2026.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 945 of 2013
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)
Umesh Kumar son of Sri Raj Singh, resident of Village Chhaturiya,
P.O Roopwas, Tehsil Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar
..........Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad,
through its Chairman.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell,
Allahabad.
.................Respondents
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri S.K Kushwaha
Advocate for the Respondents Shri P.K Rai
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue necessary order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 15.05.2013 passed by respondent No.3.
(ii) To issue necessary order or direction directing the respondents to make selection and appointment of the applicant on the post of Group D in pursuant to the En. No. 01/2007.
(iii) To issue any other necessary order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the application to the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Group 'D' under Employment Notice No. 01/2007. The applicant applied for the said post and was subsequently called for a physical efficiency test, which was conducted on 25.04.2011 at Agra, in which he was found fit. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the written examination held on MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 16.10.2011 and successfully cleared the same. After qualifying the written examination, he was called for document verification. Upon completion of document verification, he was directed to undergo a medical examination, in which he was also found fit. However, when the final select list was published, the applicant's name did not appear. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 and vide order dated 15.05.2013 issued by respondent No. 3, he was informed that his candidature had been rejected on account of irregularities found in his application form. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.05.2013, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
3. We have heard Sri S.K Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that although present notification against which the applicant has applied for the post is CEN 1/2007 yet on the similar footing in CEN 1/2013, Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in Vijay Pal and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 (6) ADJ 367 (DB) has set aside the cancellation order as well as debarment because the expert opinion was not supported by any corroborative evidence. In the present matter also, candidature of the applicant has been cancelled only showing irregularity in the impugned order. Referring to the counter affidavit, it was further argued that at later stage applicant was informed about the nature of irregularity but only on the basis of mis- match in the hand writing although it is not supported by any other evidence, candidature of the applicant cannot be cancelled. It is further argued that initially in Ran Vijay Singh and 34 others Vs. Union of India and others in Writ 'A' No. 2813/2017 decided on 16.4.2018 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court directed the respondents to re-test the hand writing/thumb impression of the candidate from Government Laboratory yet Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in subsequent decision in Vijay Pal (supra) case considering the decision of Ran Vijay Singh MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 (supra) also allowed the OA observing that only on the sole ground of expert opinion, candidature could not be cancelled. Respondents were directed to appoint the applicant. Referring to the facts of the present matter, it was also argued that applicant is entitled for the benefit of law laid down in Vijay Pal (supra) case. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that in similar footing Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has affirmed the order passed in OA No. 1814 of 2005 by the Tribunal in Writ 'A' No. 16901 of 2005 considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Union of India and others Vs. Pankaj Singh and another in Writ 'A' No. 20380 of 2023 decided on 20.12.2023 as well as Vijay Pal (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(ii) Lalita Devi Vs. Union of India and others decided on 05.04.2025 in OA No. 129/2016 by this Tribunal;
(iii) Nishant Rawat Vs. Union of India and others decided on 09.12.2025 in OA No. 1273/2015 by this Tribunal
(iv) Ashish Kumar Vs. Union of India and others decided on 03.11.2025 in OA No. 563/2017 by this Tribunal;
(v) Rakesh Kumar Meena Vs. Union of India and others decided on 22.12.2025 in OA No. 1117/2019 by this Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that Vijay Pal (supra) was relating to notification No. 1/2013 whereas present OA has been filed in notification No. 1/2007. Select list was published, candidates have joined, thus, cause shown in the OA has become infructuous. It is also argued that earlier Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Guddu Kumar Purbey Vs. Union of India and others decided in Special Appeal Defective No. 413 of 2021 on 23.09.2021 has dismissed the writ petition filed on similar footing. It is also argued that since Guddu Kumar Purbey (supra) case is earlier in time to the decision passed in Vijay Pal (supra) case, thus, Guddu Kumar Purbey (supra) case is binding on the principle of law of precedent. It is further argued that applicant cannot take benefit of law laid down in Vijay Pal (supra) case as fact of both the case are distinguishable on the ground that present original application is of different notification.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
(i) Anoop Kumar Bhartiya Vs. Union of India and others in OA NO. 701 of 2016 decided on 10.01.2026 by this Tribunal;
(ii) Geo Miller & Company Private Limited Vs. Up Jal Nigam and others reported in 2024 SCC Onlilne All 1676;
(iii) Deepak Vs. Union of India and others in OA NO. 3449 of 2016 decided on 20.01.2025 by Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
6. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
7. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties;-
(i) In Geo Miller & Company Private Limited (supra), the Hon'ble High Court, in paragraph 24, has clearly held as under:
"24. In light of the aforesaid, Issue No. 1 is answered as follows:
"When a bench of coequal strength is faced with conflicting judgments of other coequal benches, the judgment delivered earlier will continue to govern the field of law, till such time, the same is overturned or in case the question(s) of law, if referred to the larger bench is answered. This will also hold true when a lower court is faced with conflicting judgments of a higher court, or a coordinate bench is faced with conflicting judgments of a division bench."
(ii) In Deepak (supra), the Principal Bench of this Tribunal decided the case by directing the respondents to re-test the thumb impression/handwriting.
(iii) In Nishant Rawat (supra), this Tribunal directed re-testing of the thumb impression/handwriting of the applicant.
(iv) In Ashish Kumar (supra), this Tribunal also issued directions for re-testing of the applicant's thumb impression/handwriting.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5
(v) In Anoop Kumar Bhartiya (supra), this Tribunal directed reconsideration of the applicant's case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal (supra).
(vi) In Lalita Devi (supra), this Tribunal directed the respondents to conduct a re-test of the thumb impression/handwriting expert report.
(vii) In Guddu Kumar Purbey (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court dismissed the special appeal, observing that the opinion regarding the thumb impression was inconclusive as the ink of the thumb impression was smudged and the handwriting on different documents differed. The Hon'ble High Court also compared the signatures of the applicant and the material placed on record. In those circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(viii) In Vijay Pal (supra), the Hon'ble High Court, in paragraphs 30 to 34, held as under:
"30. The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The learned Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent-Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
31. The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test and P.E.T., thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
32. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners, herein, had not carried the relevant documents, including, identity card to the examination centre or had not participated in the P.E.T./Medical Examination.
33. In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e., the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
34. In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material".
The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Vijay Pal (supra) has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ix) In Pankaj Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court did not interfere with the directions issued by the Tribunal in OA No. 548 of 2016 and disposed of the writ petition. In the said OA, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to obtain a fresh test report.
(x) Recently, the judgment and order passed in Amar Singh and others vs. Union of India and others in OA No. 1814/2015, decided on 22.03.2025 by this Tribunal, has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ-A No. 16901 of 2026.
8. In the present matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant applied pursuant to Notification No. CEN-1/2007. He successfully cleared all stages of the examination. However, at the stage of document verification, a discrepancy in the handwriting/thumb impression was noticed, and solely on that basis, the impugned order came to be passed.
9. As regards the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the applicability of the Guddu Kumar Purbey (supra) case, it is true that the said case was decided prior to the decision rendered in Vijay Pal (supra). However, there is no contradiction between the aforesaid decisions. The facts of Guddu Kumar Purbey (supra) are somewhat different from those of Vijay Pal (supra).
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7
10. In the present case, the applicant's candidature was cancelled solely on the basis of an expert opinion, which was not supported by any corroborative evidence. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while deciding the case of Vijay Pal (supra), has clearly held that an opinion formed by an expert regarding mismatch of thumb impression/handwriting, if not supported by any other corroborative evidence, cannot be made the sole basis for cancelling the candidature of an applicant.
11. If the facts of the present case are compared with the Vijay Pal (supra), both cases are similar, though arising out of different notifications. In the present case also, the expert opinion is not supported by any other evidence. The applicant had cleared all stages of the examination and no evidence was collected by the respondents to establish that the applicant had not appeared in the written examination. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in Vijay Pal (supra) is fully applicable to the present case as well.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.05.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to grant appointment to the applicant against the advertisement no. 1/2007. This exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA