Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sunil Kumar vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2018
Reserved
(On 29.08.2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 06th day of September 2018
Original Application No. 330/00341 of 2011
Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member - A
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member - J
Sunil Kumar, S/o Chattar Singh, R/o Village Prithvipur Kala, Post Office
Kailsa, Tehsil Amroha, District J.P. Nagar.
. . .Applicant
By Adv: Shri Vikas Budhwar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad through its Secretary.
3. Anita (Pharmacist), D/o Not known, C/o Chief Medical
Superintendent, Northern Railway, Divisional Hospital, Near
D.R.M. Office, Moradabad.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member - A The applicant has filed this OA with the following reliefs:-
"i. issue an order or direction, call for the appointment letter order of Respondent No. 3 on the post of Pharmacist Grade III category 10 of EN 2/2008.
ii. Issue an order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to forthwith consider case of the applicant for his appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade - III and accord him all consequential service benefits and privileges attached to the said post in accordance with law.
iii. any other order or direction as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv. award cost of this application to the applicant."
2. The facts as per the OA, in brief, are that the applicant was an applicant for the post of pharmacist under the respondents and had applied for the advertisement for three posts out of which two were for 2 other backward community (in short OBC) candidates. The applicant was selected in the written examination vide the result declared on 3/9/2010 (Annexure A-5), where he was declared to be the selected candidate. It is stated that he was then called for document verification, but thereafter he was not being appointed. It is further stated that the respondents ahve appointed the respondent no. 3 who was a candidate who was on waiting list as per the notification dated 3.9.2010, by which the result of the written examination was declared. It is stated in the OA that this action of the respondents to appoint the respondent no. 3 while ignoring his case was discriminatory and it is in gross violation of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. The respondent no.2 has filed the counter reply on 21.9.2011, in which the following averments have been made in para 6 and 7 of the counter reply:-
"6. That due to some unavoidable reasons, the date of verification of certificates and genuineness of candidature of candidature which was to be held on 4.12.2009 had been postponed. Result of written examination was against published on 3.09.2010 in which inadvertently, the applicant's roll No. 13082194000330 was shown as selected candidates, where as respondent No. 3 roll No. 13082194000226 was shown as wait list candidates, where as she was in the list of selected candidates list issued earlier dated 28.10.2009. The above error was rectified at the time of documents verification and same was shown to the applicant. Here it is pertinent to mention that the RRB, reserves the right to rectify any inadvertence error at any stage of selection, same was also mentioned in the result of written test dated 28.10.2009 and 3.09.2010."
Above contentions have been reiterated in para 12 and 14 of the counter reply.
4. In reply to the above averments in the counter reply, the applicant has stated the following in the Rejoinder:-
"6. The contents of para 6 of the counter affidavit are misconceived, incorrect and hence are denied. Totally false and frivolous allegations are sought o be levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is fully entitled for his appointment on the post in question.
7. That contents of para 7 of the counter affidavit, are misconceived, incorrect and hence are denied. It is denied that the action of respondents is fair, legal and based on principle of natural justice rather to contrary, the entire action of respondents in this regard is wholly illegal and contrary to law.
8. ...........3
9. ...............
10. That contents of para 12 of the counter affidavit, are denied and in this reply contents of para 4.vi of the original application are reiterated.
11. .......
12. That the contents of paras 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit are denied and in reply thereto contents of paras
4.IX to 4.XIX are reiterated. The deponent is advised to stated that his original application is based on good grounds and liable to be allowed with costs."
5. From above, the respondents have taken a stand that the result of written examination declared on 28.9.2009 had shown the roll no of the applicant as waitlisted candidate and the roll no. of the respondent no. 3 was shown as selected. The document verification was scheduled for 4.12.2009, which had to be postponed for some reasons and a fresh notification for written result was published on 3.9.2010 calling the candidates for document verification. In the said notification dated 3.9.2010, there was a mistake in the result declared by showing the applicant's roll no. as selected and the roll no. of the respondent no. 3 as waitlisted. The error was rectified as per the existing practice that the RRB can rectify the mistake later on, which was also mentioned in the notifications declaring the result of written examination. These averments have not been specifically contradicted in the Rejoinder filed by the applicant. Unless the applicant furnishes some proof to contradict the averment of the respondents that the result declared on 3.9.2010 was wrong to the extent that the applicant's roll no. was shown as selected candidate and that it should have been shown as wait-listed candidate, it will be difficult for us to interfere in the matter.
6. Further, it was also the responsibility of the respondent no. 2 to have issued a notification stating the mistake in the notification dated 3.9.2010 for information of all concerned and for transparency. Since the applicant's merit list was adversely affected by the correction, it was necessary to notify the corrections made subsequently to the notification dated 3.9.2010 for information of the affected candidate as well as of the public at large. We also take note of the fact that the respondents have not disclosed the marks obtained by the applicant and the respondent no.3 or any other proof in support of the contention that the respondent no. 3 had secured higher position in the merit list compared to the applicant.
47. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted written arguments mainly reiterating the contentions in OA and para 6 and 14 of the counter affidavit. There is nothing on record to contradict the contention of the respondents that in the notification dated 03.09.2010, the applicant's roll No. was wrongly shown as a selected candidate instead of a wait listed candidate.
8. In view of the above and observations in para 6 and 7 above, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to check again the marks obtained by the applicant as well as by the respondent no. 3 in the examination / test and to inform the result of such checking to the applicant as well as the marks secured by the applicant and the respondent No. 3 to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Rakesh Sagar Jain) (Gokul Chandra Pati)
Member - J Member - A
/pc/