Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Nagaprasad H. J. vs The Railway Recruitment Cell South ... on 7 September, 2017

                           -1-
                                      WP No.35956/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

        WRIT PETITION NO.35956/2017 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

MR.NAGAPRASAD H.J
S/O SRI JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT & C/O SIDDARAMAIAH
YERAGUNTAPPANA MATA
BUKKAPATNA POST
SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT                           ...PETITIONER

(BY DR.S.IQBAL AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL
       SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE COMPOUND
       HUBLI -580 020
       REPRESENTED BY
       DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL
       OFFICER (RECRUITMENT)

2.     THE GENERAL MANAGER
       SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
       NEW GENERAL MANAGER'S OFFICE
       GADAG ROAD
       HUBLI - 580 023
                              -2-
                                             WP No.35956/2017

3.   SENIOR DY.GENERAL MANAGER
     AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
     SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
     NEW GENERAL MANAGER'S OFFICE
     GADAG ROAD
     HUBLI - 580 023

4.   THE ASST. PERSONNEL
     OFFICER/RECRUITMENT
     THE RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL
     SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
     DIVISIONAL OFFICE COMPOUND
     HUBLI - 580 020                              ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN
O.A.NO.170/01277/2015 (ANNEXURE-F) ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench, dismissing petitioner's application in O.A.No.170/01277/2015. In substance, the said application was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Group 'D' category in South Western Railway, Hubli.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The petitioner had applied to the post of Group 'D' category in response to an Employment notification dated 22.12.2010 issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, South Western Railway, Hubli inviting applications to fill up 3007 posts in Group 'D' category. The petitioner took the written examination conducted on 24.06.2012. However, his name did not appear in the website of the Railway Recruitment Cell. Therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the above application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner's application is not correct and no transparent procedure was followed.

5. We have perused the reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the application. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner -4- WP No.35956/2017 did not qualify in the written examination. The reasoning of the Tribunal in dismissing the application is as follows:

"5. The respondents submit that the applicant is one of the 76,779 candidates who did not qualify in the written examination for various reasons. They also state that 33 cases are still under investigation. Details of cut off marks and of the marks obtained by candidates can be provided only after the selection process is complete. The RRC's stand in Annexure A5 has been supported by the Central Information Commission in its order dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure R1).

7. In an additional reply statement the respondents submit that the OMR answer sheets of 7,483 candidates including the applicant could not be evaluated by the computer electronic scanner due to errors committed by the candidates. These errors include wrong bubbling, erasing, corrections and overwriting. The respondents produced the applicant's original OMR sheet for our inspection and drew our attention to a small hole in the section where the roll number of the candidate should have been entered. Learned Counsel for respondents submits that the applicant probably made this hole by mistake; consequently the electronic scanner rejected the OMR sheet altogether. The respondents have produced a copy of the applicant's OMR sheet (Annexure R2) and of a computer generated error report (scan number 081305, Annexure R2) in respect of the said OMR sheet.

8. After carefully perusing the pleadings and hearing the arguments of both sides we are convinced that the electronic scanner rejected the applicant's OMR sheet due to the defect mentioned in paragraph 9 above. We reject the applicant's arguments questioning the veracity of Annexure R2 and R3. We see no need to interfere in the matter. The OA is dismissed. There is no order as to costs."

(Underlining supplied)

6. We find no error in the above reasoning of the Tribunal to warrant interference under the extraordinary -5- WP No.35956/2017 jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE LB