Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rohit Kumar Ojha vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2025
(Reserved on 18.07.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 23rd day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 799 of 2012
Rohit Kumar Ojha aged about 33 years Son of Sri Hari Narayan
Ojha Resident of 3A/1/3 Dandia, Allahapur, District Allahabad.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through, GM / CORE (General Manager of Central
Organisation for Railway Electrification) of Indian Railway.
2. A K Srivastava, SDGM / CORE (in personal capacity) from
GENERAL BRANCH looking after the work of Chief Personnel
Officer of Personnel Branch.
3. Dy. CPO/CORE - Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, working
under SDGM.
4. SPO / CORE - Senior Personnel Officer, working under Dy, CPO
5. APO / CORE - Assistant Personnel Officer, working under SPO.
6. Chief Welfare Inspector / CORE - working under APO
7. Dy. CE / CORE - Dy. Chief Engineer - Engineering Department.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page "i. To pass an order to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 passed by APO respondent No 5 and the impugned order dated 03.04.2012 passed by Dy. CPO respondent no. 3 on behest of SDGM / CORE respondent no. 2 in a very arbitrary and illegal manner by means of which the applicant for appointment of the applicant at the post of TDK has been rejected merely on the ground that the applicant is overage at the time of applicant which is against the law and principle of natural justice.
ii. To pass an order or direction to the opposite parties to consider the appointment of the applicant in the post of TADK (Eventually absorbed in regular Group D posts) under the respondent no. 7 i.e., Dy. CE / CORE in effect from 01.07.2011 based upon the actual time taken in verification of documents of the applicant and to pay him regular salary for the post from 01.07.2011 up to actual joining of duty.
iii. To pass such order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in the interest of justice to the applicant.
iv. To allow the application with cost."
3. A synopsis of the controversy prevailing in the instant case is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the respondent no 5 and the impugned order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3 by way of which, the applicant has alleged, that the respondents, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, have rejected the application preferred by the applicant seeking appointment on the post of TADK (Telephone Attendant cum Dak Khalasi - a Group D post of Railways). Applicant has contended that the false reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the applicant is that the applicant is overage. Applicant has alleged that the aforesaid orders have been passed in absolute violation of standard rules and principles of natural justice and therefore prays that the said orders be quashed and respondents be directed to consider the appointment of the applicant on the post of TADK and grant all consequential benefits. Respondents on the other hand are of RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page the contention that the prayer of the applicant was rejected in absolute accordance with rules and provisions governing the subject matter and furthermore, the very scheme under which the applicant is seeking appointment has been discontinued by the Railway Board and therefore no appointment can be given to the applicant.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the records.
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had submitted the application form for appointment on the post of TADK on 24.03.2011 so much so that he was selected by the respondent no 7 as his proposal was duly forwarded to the respondent no 1 and after that, issuance of a formal appointment letter was a mere formality. It was argued that the service conditions of TADK is governed by the Railway Circular dated 04.07.2007 issued in that regard. It was argued that even after much delay, no action was taken upon the application form of the applicant nor was the process for verification initiated. It was only initiated on 20.05.2011 and completed on 05.08.2011 but still the process of conferring final appointment of the applicant was unnecessarily delayed on one ground or another by the respondents. It was argued that even those certificates and educational qualification which was not required under the prescribed requisite eligibility criteria, were also checked only to delay the matter. Furthermore, even after the verification of the certificates of the applicant, apprehension was casted on the part of the respondents that applicant's certificates were fake and forged, which was absolutely uncalled for. It was also argued that even the applicant not informed about the aforesaid apprehension nor was he given any opportunity ever to clarify the doubts of the respondents' authorities with regard to genuineness of the certificates of the applicant. It was also argued that since the applicant lost his original educational certificates, he obtained the duplicate copy of the same but the genuineness of same were doubted by the respondents department. In this regard, several letters were exchanged between the respondents department and the RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page Education Board concerned to which the certificates were sent for verification but despite the fact that every time the Education Board concerned verified regarding the genuineness of the certificate, still, the doubts were casted by the respondents over the validity and genuineness of the certificates. It was next argued that ultimately, the respondents rejected the prayer of the applicant citing the frivolous reasons that the applicant was overage and also that his educational certificates were fabricated and false. It was argued by the learned counsel that there was no question of candidate becoming overage and whatever delay occurred in finalization of the process of granting appointment to the applicant, occurred because of the inordinate delay that happened on the part of the respondents themselves and the applicant has no role in it and therefore to say that the applicant had become overage, would be unreasonable. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the reasons that have been furnished by the respondents for rejecting the prayer of the applicant are illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the instant OA is liable to be allowed and all the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and thereby the respondents be directed to consider the appointment of the applicant on the post of TADK from the back date along with all consequential benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant's counsel and by way of his counter affidavit, he argued that the applicant was never permanently appointed on the post of TADK. Although process for verification of his candidature was initiated but the same was finalized and his candidature was rejected on the two pivotal grounds that he was overage on the cut off date and secondly, his educational certificates were not found genuine. The impugned orders passed subsequently are absolutely legal and passed in accordance with the rules. Just because the process for consideration of the appointment of the applicant was initiated, it does not mean that the applicant had any right to be selected on the post of TADK. Learned counsel for the respondents RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page further argued that on this date, no benefit can be given to the applicant for the reason that he is claiming appointment on the post of TADK and the Railway Board vide letter dated 06.08.2020, decided that any appointment of fresh substitutes as TADK should not either be processed or made with immediate effect. Furthermore, all cases approved for such appointment since 01st July, 2020 may be reviewed. Finally, Railway Board, vide letter dated 01.12.2020, have issued the policy of appointment of TADK on the Railways wherein it was specifically stated that engagement of fresh face substitutes as TADK is discontinued with effect from 06.08.2020. Thus, in view of the said policy, the engagement of the applicant, which never happened anyway, can be also not reconsidered in view of the aforesaid fact that the very scheme of engagement of TADK has been discontinued. Learned counsel argued that once it has been decided by the Railway Board that fresh engagements of TADK shall be discontinued, the respondents cannot go beyond the policy matter to entertain the case of the applicant. Thus, prayer was made that the instant original application be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the same facts as narrated in the original application. To substantiate his case further, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alka Ojha Vs Rajashtan Public Service Commission reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 727 SC.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on record.
9. As the brief facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The applicant preferred application for appointment on the post of Telephone Attendant Cum Dak Khalasi (TADK). The applicant's major contention is that the respondents did not act upon the application of the applicant in time and deliberately delayed the process for one reason or another and thereafter rejected his candidature citing wrong RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page reasons that he was overage and his educational certificates were not genuine. Applicant's contention is that he was not overage and whatever delay occurred in finalization of the process of appointment of the applicant, was occurred because of the inaction and delayed action on the part of the respondents to which applicant cannot be made to suffer. It is pertinent to mention here that before dwelling upon the issue as to whether the candidature of the candidate was rejected for right reasons or wrong reasons, it would be in the fitness of things to ascertain the status of appointment under the scheme of TADK, under which the applicant herein is also claiming appointment. The Railway Board promulgated fresh guidelines regarding the engagement and regulation of TADKs vide letter dated 01.12.2020. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of the aforesaid Circular are quoted herein below:
"Further to Board's letter No. E(NG)II/2008/SB/19/BP/TADK/Pt. A dated 6.8.2020, policy of TADK on the Railways has been reviewed comprehensively.
2. In continuation of the Board's instructions ibid, the policy for appointment of TADK will henceforth be as under:-
(i) Engagement of fresh face substitute as TADK is discontinued with effect from 6.8.2020.
(ii) Existing posts and incumbent TADKs will continue and all issues related to their service conditions and regularization will be governed by existing policy prevalent over Zonal Railways.
(iii) As regards posts of TADK that are currently vacant:
(a) General Managers may review requirement/necessity for continuing with such posts, keeping in view operational and functional consideration.
RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page
(b) Such posts may be filled from substitute TADKS available in Indian Railways. Alternatively, these posts may also be filled by regular employees, from any unit in Indian Railways, subject to willingness of the employee and the officer concerned. The lien and seniority of above employees shall be protected in their parent cadre.
3. General Manager can make further provisions to operationalize above arrangement in their Railways.
4. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority."
10. The aforesaid quotation abundantly reveals that the Railway Board has directed all its units to discontinue the engagement of fresh substitutes TADK w.e.f. 06.08.2020. Thus, even for a moment if it is assumed that the applicant is right in his contention that his candidature was rejected illegally by the respondents, when, it was clearly directed in the aforesaid Circular that no fresh engagement could be made after 06.08.2020, no direction at this stage can be given to the respondents' department to consider the appointment of the applicant on the post of TADK. Discontinuing the engagement of the fresh substitutes TADK was the discretion of the Railway Board and clearly falls under the ambit of policy matters where Tribunals and courts have got very limited or no say whatsoever. Thus, we are of the considered view that at this stage, respondents cannot be directed to consider the appointment of the applicant when a clear Circular directing to do away with the fresh engagement of TADKs has already been issued by the competent authority of the Railways.
11. Even if, for a moment, it is taken into consideration that in the instant case, the cause of action arose much earlier to the date when the aforesaid Circular to done away with the scheme of TADK was issued by the Railways, and therefore the case of the applicant may hold some water, it is pertinent to record that when the entire scheme itself has been discontinued so much so that no fresh appointments are being made under that scheme, no direction can be given to the RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page respondents to grant special consideration to the applicant thereby appointing him under the scheme that stands obliterated. In this regard, comparison can also be made to a similar scheme which is known as LARSGESS. It stands for Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff. Earlier, appointments were done under the aforesaid Scheme but the same were done away with after Union Government decided to discontinue the Scheme in light of various pronouncements made across the country by several courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India particularly in the case of in the case of Manjit and others Vs. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021, decided on 29th January, 2021 wherein it has observed that "Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done inthe matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioner's claim therefore is neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed."
Thus, subsequent to discontinuation of the aforesaid referred scheme of LARSGESS, no new appointments are being made under the said scheme irrespective of the date of preference of candidature by any candidate. Thus, similar comparison can be drawn to the case of appointment under TADK Scheme. Since the very scheme itself has been done away with, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of appointment of the applicant under the said scheme, moreover, when the applicant's candidature got rejected at the first consideration also.
12. Thus, in view of the above deliberations and analysis, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there lies no merit in the instant case and therefore, this original application is liable to be RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page dismissed. Accordingly, OA No. 799 of 2012 is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The effect and operation of the impugned order stands intact. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
9|Page