Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Yogesh Kumar vs D.G. Ordance Factories on 10 July, 2025
Reserved on 05.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 10th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 795 of 2018
Yogesh Kumar aged about 31 years S/O Shri Surya Nath Paswan,
Resident of Village Jamua No 2, PO Salempur, District, Deoria.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of
Defence, Department of Production, New Delhi.
2. The Director Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata.
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Phool Bagh,
Kanpur.
4. Assistant Works Manager / Administration, Ordnance Equipment
Factory, Phool Bagh, Kanpur.
5. Amod Kumar Jyoti S/O Sri Laxmi Mali, Resident of Village &
Post - Korari, District Patna (Bihar)
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, Shri Rajesh Kumar
Tripathi and Smt. Rekha Singh
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri M K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi and Shri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13-03-2018 (Annexure A-1 to Compilation No 1) passed by Respondent No. 3.
RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the order of appointment issued to Respondent No 5 and appointment order for the post of durwan be issued in favour of applicant and appointed against the post in place of Respondent No. 5.
(iii) To issue another writ, order or direction in favor of the applicant as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of application in favor of the applicant."
3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant has alleged that the respondents have illegally appointed one person on the vacancy advertised by them and had there not been that illegal appointment, the applicant would have secured that appointment. Applicant has contended that the person who has been illegally appointed by the respondents under prescribed PH category was given undue favour by the respondents' department as he was asked to re-submit his PH certificate even after the expiry of the prescribed period within which the application forms were supposed to be filed. Furthermore, the applicant has also contended that even after the expiry of the prescribed period within which the applications were supposed to be received, the PH disability form which was submitted by that illegally appointed person was fake and bogus as the same was not issued by the competent medical authority. Applicant has alleged that had the aforesaid illegal exercise not been committed on the part of the respondents' department, the vacancy on which that illegally appointed person is working for so many years now, would have been secured by the applicant himself. Respondents on the other hand have contended that no illegality took place in the process of appointment and the same was carried out in absolute accordance with the extant rules and provisions as were stipulated in the advertisement. By way of the instant original application, that applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 13.03.2018 through which the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant wherein prayer was made to consider him for appointment. Prayer has also been made by the applicant to direct the respondents to cancel the appointment of the respondent no 5 and appointment order for the post of Durwan be issued to the applicant instead.
RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an advertisement was issued in Employment News of 17-23 December 2011 for the post of Durwan in Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur. Specific stipulation was made in the advertisement that only PH Orthopedically Handicapped (One Arm Affected) candidates can apply. The candidates were required to send their application within 21 days from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper. It was further argued that the applicant applied for the aforesaid post annexing therewith his physically handicapped certificate which shows "only one arm affected". It was next argued that in physical test as well as the written test, the applicant and four other candidates were qualified. Total number of posts for Physically Handicapped candidates were four. Candidate at Sl No. 2 namely Amod Kumar Jyoti who has been arrayed in the OA as respondent no. 5 also qualified the examination but handicap certificate submitted by him was relating to both the arms. The respondents extending undue favour to the respondent no. 5, after expiry of the date of the submission of forms, again directed him to file a fresh handicap certificate, which was illegal. It is also argued that medical / disability certificate submitted by the respondent no 5 is also not genuine because it was not issued by the competent authority. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the annexure attached with the rejoinder dated 25.08.2025 filed against the counter of the respondent no. 5 and further argued that Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped, Gandhi Viharm Police Colony, Anisabad, Patna was not competent to issue handicap certificate. It is also argued that handicap certificate could only be issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned district. Since certificate annexed with the application of respondent no 5 a copy of which is annexed along with the OA is relating disability of both the hands whereas in the advertisement, specific stipulation was mentioned that only one arm handicapped person can apply for the post, thus, the certificate given by the respondent no. 5 could not RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page have been accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the documents annexed with the OA and further argued that respondents themselves have admittd that only one arm affected person can apply against the advertisement. Thus, selection of the respondent no. 5 is illegal as both the hands were affected as would be clear from the annexure no 4 of the OA and thus he was not eligible for the post advertised through the aforesaid advertisement. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the selection of the respondent no 5 is illegal from the very beginning and thus OA be allowed and the order dated 13.03.2018 be quashed and also the respondents be directed to cancel the order of appointment issued in respect of respondent no. 5 and to issue offer of appointment in favour of the applicant. To further substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.S. Patil (Dr) Vs Gulbarga University and others reported in (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 785.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents argued that although in the certificate annexed by the respondent no. 5 shows that there was partial stiffness in the left elbow also but for clarification, the respondent no 5 was directed to file fresh handicap certificate. The respondent no 5 filed a fresh handicap certificate in which only right hand was shown affected. Since he was in the merit at sl no 2 and he subsequently filed a certificate showing only one arm affected and thus he was rightly selected by the respondents. There is no illegality in selection of the respondent no 5. Prayer made by the applicant in the OA cannot be allowed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 referring to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by him argued that there was only right hand of the applicant affected. Since doctor has shown in the original certificate the stiffness in the left elbow also and due to this reason, for further clarification, fresh handicap certificate was obtained from the respondent no. 5 which shows the RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page defect only in the right hand. There is no illegality in the selection process. Subsequently obtained handicapped certificate which is annexed with the counter affidavit and filed before the competent authority has been issued by the competent medical authority in which it is clearly mentioned that only right hand is affected. The applicant has joined the services just in the year 2013 and since then he is continuing in services and thus he cannot be thrown out from the services on the basis of facts disclosed in the OA. Thus, referring to the entire facts of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 argued that OA be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the documents on record.
9. As is clear from the facts disclosed hereinabove, an advertisement was issued in the Employment News of 17-23 December, 2011 by the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur for the post of Durwan. Four posts were kept reserved for Physically Handicapped persons. Specific stipulation was mentioned in the advertisement that only one arm affected person can apply. Application form was to be submitted within 21 days from the date of publication of the advertisement in the newspaper. However, it appears that respondent no 5 has also submitted application annexing therewith the handicap certificate which shows that there was traumatic amputation of 3rd and 4th and 5th (Middle, Ring and Little) Finger of the right hand, Terminal Phalanx of right index finger, Stiffness of Right Thumb, Partial Stiffness of Left Elbow. In Column No 7 of Annexure No A4, it is mentioned that he was 42% disable. An affidavit has been annexed with the counter filed by the private respondent wherein he has mentioned that on 23.11.2012, re- verification of the disability was done in which only disability in right hand was found. It is also mentioned in the affidavit annexed as annexure No 2 of the counter affidavit that certificate dated 23.11.2012 was issued by Vocational Rehabilitation Center for Handicap, Patna. It is clarified at this stage that application form has to be accepted within 21 days of the publication of the advertisement. RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page It means that the application received thereafter will not be entertained. This stipulation has also been clearly mentioned in the advertisement annexed with the OA. It shall also be presumed that if the application form is not complete in all respects, it will be out rightly rejected. If the 21 days within which the application form was to be submitted is calculated from the date of the notification, then the last date turns out to be 13.01.2012. If the certificate annexed by the respondent no 5 was not clear or was not in accordance with the advertisement the application form of the respondent no 5 ought to have been rejected on this ground itself. In this matter, respondents extending undue benefit to the respondent no 5, directed him to submit fresh handicap certificate on 23.11.2012. It appears that only to facilitate the respondent no 5, the respondents exceeded their jurisdiction.
10. Now we come to the genuineness and authenticity of the handicap certificate annexed by the respondent no. 5 along with the application form as well as the one dated 23.11.2012. As has been disclosed hereinabove, in the first handicap certificate submitted by the respondent no. 5, both the hands were shown affected. Had both the hands of the respondent no. 5 not been affected and the certificate submitted along with the application form was clear then what was the necessity to extend the benefit to the respondent no. 5 to file a fresh certificate. This act of the respondents caused and frustrated the chance of the next candidate to secure selection. If the pleadings of the parties are taken into consideration on the basis of handicap certificate annexed with the application form by the respondent no. 5, he would not have been selected. Certificate annexed by the applicant clearly reveals that there is only one arm affected of the applicant. If the respondents have adopted fair procedure, in that situation, the applicant who was placed in the merit at sl no 5 would have been selected in place of the respondent no. 5.
11. Further, in the case of MS Patil (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has discussed the issue of illegal selection of a candidate. His RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page selection was cancelled and the authority concerned was directed to issue a fresh notification to fill up the post.
12. Also, submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the respondent no 5 has joined the services approximately 12 years back and thus if decision is taken against him, he will suffer irreparable loss, is not acceptable. It is pertinent to mention at this stage in this respect that since selection of the respondent no 5 was illegal from the very beginning, thus, the balance of equity and law both will be in favour of the applicant and not respondent no 5. Also due to the illegal action of the respondents, the application too has been suffering from the very beginning.
13. Also, in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit of the private respondent, the applicant has annexed certain information obtained under Right to Information Act which clearly shows that authority concerned who had issued the handicap certificate on 23.11.2012 was not competent to issue the handicap certificate and thus on this ground also, action of the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the respondent no. 5 on the basis of such type of document is illegal particularly when initial certificate annexed with the application form was in relation to both the arms being affected.
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant case of the application is liable to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed. Order dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to cancel the appointment of respondent no. 5 and to issue offer of appointment in favour of the applicant. This exercise must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
15. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
7|Page