Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Narender Kumar vs M/O Railways on 28 October, 2021
1
OA No. 827/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 827/2013
Order reserved on 11.10.2021
DATE OF ORDER: 28.10.2021
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Narendar Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash by caste
Meghwal aged about 23 years R/o 152, Ganga Sagar
B, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) permanent resident of
Chak 24 S.S.W., VPO-Fatehgarh, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
....Applicant
Shri Bharat Budania, proxy counsel for
Shri Dinesh Bishnoi, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager
North-Western Railway, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North-Western
Railway, Bikaner, (Raj.).
3. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), North-
Western Railway, Durgapura Railway Station,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
.... Respondents
Shri Anupam Agarwal, counsel for respondents.
2
OA No. 827/2013
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"By any order or direction the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly quash and set aside the order dated 24.07.2013 i.e. Annexure-1, by which the candidature of the applicant has been rejected and further the Respondents, may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the present applicant Roll No. 62006726 and give him appointment in pursuance to the Advertisement Notice dated 16.12.2010 on the basis of his merit along with all the consequential service benefits.
Any other order or relief or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the respondents had issued an Employment Notice No. 02/10 (RRC/NWR) dated 16.12.2010 for filling up several Group 'D' posts and the applicant who belonged to SC category had applied for the same in Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination held on 24.06.2012 and after 3 OA No. 827/2013 qualifying in the written examination, he appeared for Physical Efficiency Test held on 13.10.2012 and thereafter, after qualifying in the PET, he was called for documents verification and medical examination on 21.01.2013. Both documents verification as well as medical examination was done. Applicant came to know that after completion of selection process, Divisions have been allotted to successful candidates but the applicant was not called to join in spite of being qualified in every test conducted by the respondents. He tried to contact the respondents for the reason of his not been called but was not replied satisfactorily. Thereafter, under RTI Act, he made an application dated 17.06.2013 and sought information and documents with regard to his rejection. Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24.07.2013 i.e. Annexure A-1, informed the Applicant that his application has been rejected because his application was found invalid under sub-clause (III) of Clause 8.11 of the advertisement i.e. unsigned/undated applications/applications without clear and un- smudged thumb impression and / or without marks of identification. Therefore, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in non inclusion of the 4 OA No. 827/2013 name of the applicant in the final result for the Group 'D' post, he has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
3. This Tribunal vide its order dated 20.12.2013 had issued notices to the respondents and had passed interim orders to the extent that respondents were directed to keep one post of Group 'D' vacant under the advertisement dated 16.12.2010 for the applicant and the said interim relief continued till date.
4. Respondents filed their reply stating that bare perusal of the notification would demonstrate that in para 8.1 all the candidates had been instructed to carefully read the instructions for filling up the application form. As per sub para (ii) and (iii) of para 8.11 pertaining to invalid applications, which enumerates that incomplete or applications without marks of identification will be treated as deficient applications liable to be summarily rejected. Applicant despite instructions, failed to submit duly filled up application form rather left the column No. 20 blank. Bare perusal of Annexure A/5 would clarify the said aspect. It was also clarified that as per para 10.7 of the notification, candidate must ensure that he fulfils 5 OA No. 827/2013 the eligibility and other criteria. The RRC-NWR Cell will reject such applications not fulfilling the requisite criteria at any stage of recruitment and if erroneously appointed, such candidates shall be liable to be summarily removed from service. Even Para 15 towards the back of the call letter makes it clear that it is only permission to appear in the written examination. Issuing a call letter does not in any way indicate that RRC Jaipur is otherwise satisfied with the application form. It was further stated that those who qualified written examination and physical efficiency test were called for documents verification and medical examination and their applications are deeply scrutinized. Whose documents are successfully verified is sent for medical examination. During medical examination bodily marks of the candidate were matched with those mentioned in the application form to verify his candidature. As submitted, during scrutiny, it was found that the Applicant has failed to fill up his bodily identification marks in column 20 of the application form. This fact came to the knowledge of the respondents only when his application form was deeply scrutinized. As such, it was not possible to send him for medical examination. Accordingly, his 6 OA No. 827/2013 candidature was rejected as per para 8.11 (iii) of the notification with information to the applicant. Thus, as his candidature itself was rejected, therefore, he has no right to be declared successful and to be allotted the divisions. Therefore, the Applicant has no claim for the said post and the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the said ground itself and the interim order dated 20.12.2013 be vacated as their action is in consonance with the rules.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the submissions of the respondents and stated that para 10.7 of the notification does not apply in his case as he is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed on the said post. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Satyveer vs. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), NWR, Jaipur, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1083/2015, date of judgment 27th May 2015), which covers the present issue.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely as well as the judgments cited by the parties.
7OA No. 827/2013
7. The applicant and the respondents reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
8. The question which requires to be considered is whether the candidature of the applicant ought to have been cancelled on the ground of human error/ bonafide mistake in not filling up Column No. 20 of the application form pertaining to identification marks and when he has already been protected by the interim directions by this Tribunal and when no third party rights are affected.
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that applicant, being an SC candidate and fulfilling the criteria as required, had applied for the Group 'D' post in pursuance to the Employment Notice No. 02/10 (RRC/NWR) dated 16.12.2010. He was given a call letter and had appeared in the written examination in which he had passed and thereafter he appeared in physical efficiency test, which also he cleared. Thereafter, he was called for documents verification on 21.01.2013. On the day of documents verification, his documents were verified and was then sent for 8 OA No. 827/2013 medical examination. It is only thereafter as per the submission of the respondents that applications of successful candidates were deeply verified. At that juncture, it was noticed that the applicant has failed to fill Column No. 20 of the application form pertaining to his identification marks and, therefore, as per sub para (III) of Para 8.11 of the notification, the candidature of the applicant was rejected.
10. After going through the case of the applicant, we see that the stand taken by the respondents is that as per provisions contained in para 8.11 (III) of the notification, it was clear that application forms without marks of identification will be treated as deficient applications and the same will be summarily rejected. The applicant had in fact left Column No. 20 blank in the Application form. Despite instructions, the applicant failed to submit duly filled up application form, which fact can be perused from Annexure A/5 annexed to the O.A. So the candidature of the applicant for Group 'D' posts has been rejected and the same was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure A/1). Thus, as the candidature of the applicant was rejected as per specific condition mentioned in the Notification dated 9 OA No. 827/2013 16.12.2010, as such, there is no illegality in rejecting the application form of the applicant.
11. As it is seen that the applicant belongs to SC category and he is not that educated to understand that he has failed to fill up Column No. 20 pertaining to identification marks. In fact, the applicant has cleared all stages of selection process, be it written examination, physical efficiency test and documents verification. Respondents have rejected his candidature merely because he has kept Column No. 20 of the application form as blank but it was his inadvertent mistake while submitting his application form as he failed to fill Column No. 20 of the application form pertaining to identification marks.
12. As seen, when the Government itself provides for special reservation in the case of SC/ST/OBC candidates and that they require help and support of the State and there are several schemes and concessions provided to them and, thus, a practical approach should have been adopted by the respondents as the applicant had merely forgotten to fill column No. 20 pertaining to identification marks of his body and, therefore, he should have been 10 OA No. 827/2013 considered for appointment. It is, in fact, a bonafide mistake / human error in filling up the application form for which the applicant could have been personally called and asked to fill the same and he could have been appointed and he need not be penalized for such a mistake. Also in the present case, no third party rights are affected as the applicant is having interim protection in his favour by this Tribunal vide its order dated 20.12.2013 wherein one post of Group 'D' under the notification dated 16.12.2010 is kept vacant for him.
13. It is trite law that even in administrative matters, if decision adversely affects a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provisions for giving an opportunity, the principles of natural justice is inbuilt. Though it is true that the advertisement clearly stated that the candidates to be cautious in filling application forms and any mistake/error would debar such applications, but due to the bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant to fill up Column No. 20 of application form pertaining to identification marks, the respondents should have allowed the said correction, but the same was not done. It is clear that 11 OA No. 827/2013 while filling the application form, human error cannot be completely ruled out and the applicant, therefore, should not be penalised so harshly for such an error. A candidate whose marks are above cut off marks or is in merit deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error. As such, in the present case, the bonafide mistake committed by the applicant is only about not filling Column No. 20 of the application form, thus, the application form deserves to be rectified /corrected and he should be allowed to rectify the error by allowing him to fill Column No. 20 of the application form and he should be allowed to complete his further formalities of selection.
14. We are in agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan passed in the case of Satyveer, as relied upon by the applicant, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that a human error committed could not be considered to be a deemed irregularity for rejection of the application form.
15. In view of the observations made herein-above, the action of the respondents calls for interference and the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 (Annexure A/1) 12 OA No. 827/2013 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the applicant to carry out the necessary correction in the application form and pass appropriate orders in that respect and, accordingly, allow the applicant to participate in further selection process i.e. medical examination also in view of the interim protection granted to the applicant by this Tribunal vide its order dated 20.12.2013 and if otherwise found suitable for the post of Group 'D', he may be given appointment on the said post with all consequential benefits. The said exercise shall be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. With these observations and directions, the Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/