Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Murari Lal Meena vs Union Of India Through The on 23 July, 2013
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH : JABALPUR On this Tuesday the 23rd day of July Two Thousand and Thirteen OA. 729 / 2009 Honble Shri Justice Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member Honble Shri G.P. Singhal, Administrative Member Murari Lal Meena, S/o Shri Kailash Chand Meena Aged 30 years, by caste Meena R/o Bidonda Post-Bhanakpura Tehsil-Mahwa, Dist. Dausa (Raj.) Applicant (By Advocate: Shri R.S. Tripathi) Vs. Union of India through the 1.Secretary Railway Board Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India Room No.204, Rail Bhawan Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 2.Railway Recruitment Board Govt. of India, Ministry of Railway Through Chairman, RRB, Bhopal Eastern Railway Colony, Bhopal 462053 Respondents (By Advocate : Smt. A Ruprah) O R D E R
By G.P. Singhal, AM -
The applicant had appeared for Selection to the post of Technician Grade III (Mechanical Fitter), advertised by Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal, vide Employment Notice No.3/2007 (Annexure A-5). He appeared in the written examination conducted on 4.1.2009 and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for verification of certificates on 5.5.2009. However, on account of discrepancy in regard to his date of birth as mentioned in the application form, his candidature has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 24.6.2009, as while the application form mentions 01.01.1979 as date of birth, the Secondary Education Board marksheet shows the date of birth as 01.07.1979.
2 The applicant submitted that he had filled 1.7.1979 as his date of birth in the application form but the respondents are wrongly viewing it as 1.1.1979. Besides, he had filled the age correctly on the form based on his date of birth as 1.7.1979. In any case there was no reason for him to hide his actual date of birth as he was within the age limit prescribed for SC/ST candidates. He further submitted that his candidature has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing and without considering his documents, data sheet and his version that he has filled 1.7.1979 in the form also. Thus, rejection of his candidature is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3 The respondents, in their reply, submitted that in the application form filed by the applicant (Annexure R-2) date of birth is clearly mentioned as 1.1.1979. However, as per his mark sheet of Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan (Annexure R.3) his date of birth is shown as 1.7.1979. Thus, he had submitted wrong information in the application form and therefore his declaration in the application regarding correctness of the information filled in the form was not true. In these circumstances, the Railway Recruitment Board had no other option but to cancel his candidature.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
5 During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that in the Employment Notice No.3/2007, condition No.11 and 11.8 have been violated by the applicant. These conditions are reproduced as under:
11 A candidate will be disqualified from selection for which he is a candidate, or debarred either permanently or for a specified period by the Railway Recruitment Board from any examination or selection conducted by all the RRBs, if he is found to be guilty of 11.8 Making statements which are incorrect or false or suppressing material information. 6 She further submitted that in the said Employment Notice, attention of the candidates has been specifically drawn towards fulfillment of certain conditions and condition No.2, of it is as given below:
If any other details indicated in the applications are found incorrect at any stage, the candidates will be disqualified. Thus, the candidature of the applicant has been rightly rejected on account of discrepancy in the information submitted by him in the application form, as due to this discrepancy his statement in the form also becomes incorrect.
7 The Railway Recruitment Board conducts selection to large categories of vacancies for which they get applications in very large number. Therefore, they have to adopt the processes in regard to verification of candidature which are mechanical in nature and do not provide scope for corroboration of information in the application form with other accompanying documents. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted in rejecting the candidature of the applicant on account of violation of condition No.11 and 11.8 in the Employment notice and Condition No.2 regarding which attention of candidates was specifically invited.
8 In view of the aforesaid, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(G.P. Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sk
??
??
??
??
1