Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Megh Raj vs M/O Railways on 8 September, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
(OA No. 060/00751/2016 } CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 01.09.2017 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 060/00751/2016 Chandigarh, this the 8 day of September, 2017 HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A) Megh Raj Singh aged 24 years, JE Group-C, son of Shri Snehi Ram, R/o Village Badripur, Post Office Parmadara, Tehsil Deeg, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ». APPLICANT (Argued by: Shri Harish Bhardwaj , Advocate} VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road,.New Delhi-1 10001. 2. Northern Railway through General Manager, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. Railways Recruitment Board, Jammu through its Chairman, Srinagar. .. RESPONDENTS (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Putney) ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) The present Original Application {(O.A.} is directed against the letters dated 29.38.2016 and 18.5.2016 (Annexures A-5 & A-9} respectively, whereby the applicant has been inforrned that his candidature for the post of Junior Engineer has been cancelled and he has also been debarred from appearing in any of the (OA No. 060/0075 1/2016 } examination to be conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB).
2. The undisputed brief facts, which led to fling of the present O.A., are that the RRB issued a Centralized Employment Notice No. 02/2014 (Annexure A-1} dated 20.09.2014, for filling up the post of JE Group - Grade pay Rs. 4200/- and Senior Section Engineer Group- Grade pay of Rs. 4600/- with closing date 19.10.2014. The applicant, who belongs to reserved category of SC, being eligible in terms of employment notice, has applied for the post of JE. He was allotted Roll No. to facilitate him to appear im the written examination for the post of JE Group, which was held on 4.1.2015. The result of the written examination was declared on 14.12.2015, where the applicant was declared as qualified in the written examination under SC category. He was provisionally short listed for document verification. He appeared before the RRB, Jammu on 11.01.2016 for document verification and as per the procedure laid down, the applicant completed all the formalities. On 16.5.2016 the RRB, Jammu uploaded the final result, where the applicant's name could not find mention therein. Immediately, thereafter the applicant personally visited the office of RRB, Jammu, and he was given a copy of letter dated 29.3.2016 (Annexure A-8), whereby he has been infermed that his candidature has been cancelled on the ground that the handwriting in running hand and signature on OMR, and signature on attendance sheet, filled on the date of written examination, and handwriting running hand, declaration form & signatures filled on the day of document verification does not match and are different, eemnnney fad (OA No. 060/0075 1/2016 } which establishes that either you or yourself did not appear in written examination or some other candidate had appeared during the document verification, who written all the documents in running hand writing and signature etc. He was subsequently debarred from appearing in any of examination which is toe be conducted by the RRB, without affording him an opportunity of being heard vide letter dated 18.5.2016 (Annexure A-9}. Hence the instant O.A.
3. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant did not dispute the factual accuracy of the facts. However, they submitted that in terms of paras 1.05, 13.01, 13.02, 14.03 of the Employment Notice dated 20.09.2014, any deviation / violation would lead to automatic cancellation of the candidature and will be debarred for life from appearing in all RRB examinations as well as debarred from any appointment in Railways. It is submitted that as per condition no. 1.05 it has been specifically envisaged that the signature of the candidates on application form, answer sheet, question booklet and other prescribed places should be identical, either in English or Hindi, and must be in running hand and not in block/capital or disjointed letters. Signatures in different style or language, at the time of application, written examination and document verification etc., may result in cancellation of candidature. It is further submitted that in the present case Central Forensic Science Laboratery has established that the same does not match and are different which ieads to solitary conclusion beyond any doubt and thus the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled. In order to establish the ye (OA No. 060/007S 1/2016 ) genuineness of his candidature, these documents were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and it has been opined that the signature and handwritings of the applicant obtained on the day of written examination on the day of DV could not be to be said of one and the same person. Based on such opinion, the applicant was declared to be ineligible for the post of JE.
4. We have heard Shri Harish Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the applicant as well as Shri Yogesh Putney, learned counsel representing the respondents at considerable length and perused the record with their valuable help.
5. Sh. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned order, rejecting the candidature of the applicant and subsequently debarring him for life from appearing in any of 'the examination to be conducted by the RRB is arbitrary and against the law. He submitted that before passing the impugned order, the applicant was neither put on any notice and nor he was afforded an opportunity of hearing, and therefore, the impugned order has to be quashed and set aside being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 060 /00574/2015 -- Sandeep Kuamr Vs. Union of India & Another dated 27.1.2017 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C} No. 4379/2016 -- Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Another dated 26.5.2016 (Annexure A-12).
6. Per contra, Shri Putney, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted Loa) (QA No. 060/00751/2016 } that the issue involve in the instant O.A. has already been put at rest. He further submitted that the order relied upon by the applicant in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) has subsequently been reviewed by this Tribunal and reheard the entire matter and while disposing of number of cases vide decision dated 27.01.2017 has dismissed the O.A. and approved the view expressed by the respondents therein. Therefore, he submitted that the instant O.A, may be dismissed.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and we are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel representing the respondents that the issue involved in the instant O.A. has already been considered and put at rest by the jurisdictional High Court in case of Parveen Kumar Vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (CWP NO. 12264/2016) decided on 8.11.2016 where the sarme arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant were negated by the DB. Following the same, this Tribunal has decided the case of Sandeep Kumar case {supra} by dismissing the O.A. vide its order dated 27.01.2017 to which one of us Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Member (J) was member. Accordingly, we left with no option, but to dismiss the present petition on the same lines. The relevant paras in case of Sandeep Kumar case (supra} reads as under.
"9 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and we are in agreement with the submission made by the respondents that issue involved in present O.A, has already been considered by the jurisdictional High Court in case of Parveen Kumar (supra) where this same arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant were negated by the DB.
10. Similar view has also been taken by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in case of Jeetender Singh Vs. U.O.1 & Ors.
(O.A No. 4526/2015 decided on 08.09.2016) where qlea of violation of principle of natural justice by the applicant therein was also considered and rejected. The applicant also fails to ao (PGOPINATH) 6 (OA No. 060/0075 1/2016 ) show any contrary law to what has been held by Division Bench of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The applicant has also not challenged the report submitted by the Government handwriting expert. Merely, applicants have put Thumb Impression dees not Ispo facto makes the report submitted by Government handwriting expert invalid or doubtful. Once categorical finding recorded by the government expert with regard to mismatch of handwriting of the applicant then no direction in shape of writ of mandamus to the respondents can be issued for considering his case for appointment in the light of the observation made by the DB of jurisdictional High Court in case of Parveen Singh (supra). We will be failing in our duty if we do not consider the judgment as relied upon by the applicant in case of Kapil Dev Vs, Union of India & Ors. (CWP no. 21150/2013) dated 01.08.2016. We are of the considered view that facts in that case are entirely different then facts of the present case. In case of Kapil Dev (supra), the respondents have prescribed that candidate has ta makes his signature in a particular fashion which the court held that respondents cannot compel candidates to subscribe the sign in particular fashion where in present case facts are otherwise and rejection of applicant's candidature is based upon the expert report and based upon the documents, hand writing of the applicant does not match with other documents, therefore, we see mo reason to interfere with the impugned order in O.As, and as such both the O.As are dismissed being devoid of merit, Li. No costs."
ON eel o * MEMBER {A} MEMBER (J) Dated: 2 .09.2017 (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)