Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shrimohan Meena vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 January, 2019
RESERVED.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 22nd day of January 2019.
Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 330/02322 of 2017
&
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 330/001457 of 2017
HON'BLE MR RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.MOHD. JAMSHED, MEMBER (A)
Shrimohan Meena s/o Shri Mahesh Ram Meena, R/o Village Ratanpur
Bhiramad, P.O. Lilothi Tehsil Samathora, District Dholpur (State of
Rajasthan).
...............Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Verma
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, (Headquarters'
Office), North Central Railway, Subegarganj, Allahabad.
2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway,
Nawab Yusuf Road, Balmiki Chauraha, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
..........Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, MEMBER (J)
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the respondent No.2,cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Group 'D' post of Employment Notice No. 01/2013 and also debarring him from appearing in all RRC/RRB examinations for appointment in 2 Railways for LIFTE TIME (ANNEXURE A-1 to Compilation No. I of this petition).
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to interpolate the name of the petitioner in the panel formulated against Group 'D' posts notified pursuant to the employment notice No. 01/2013 and to appoint him on any suitable Group 'D' category post for which he is found medically fit, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner".
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is similar to the applicant of OA No.330/1349/2016 (Ranjeet Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) decided on 01.08.2018, applicant of OA No.330/1492/2014 (Nem Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) decided on 17.01.2018 and OA No. 330/1112/2016 (Dharamjeet Kumar Vs. UOI and Ors) decided on 01.09.2016. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant will be satisfied if similar order is given in the instant OA as well.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the claim of the applicants and stated that during the document verification the signature/hand writing of the applicants did not match with the signature/hand writing obtained during written and PET examination. In addition, it has also been argued by learned counsel for respondents that the present O.A. is barred by period of limitation.
34. Taking the question of limitation in the first instance, it has been averred in the Application for condonation of delay that the petitioner has a large family and therefore did not have sufficient money to litigate the matter in the Tribunal. In these circumstances, he had been contacting the office of respondent No. 2 and was assured at every occasion the in the meeting of RRC, his case shall be processed and all possible efforts will made to get mismatch of the thumb impression of the petitioner in the Bio-metrics attendance corroborated with the other evidence, such as, videography etc and in case the mismatch is not corroborated, he shall be included in the Panel and offered post suitable to his medical fitness. During the holding of the subsequent exam, he came to know that he has been debarred from contesting all future selection of the Indian Railways. Despite having paucity of funds, advocate Mr. Rakesh Verma sympathetically accepted his case without charging any counsel fee. In these circumstances, application seeks condonation of delay in filing the O.A.
5. In their objections, respondents have taken the plea that the O.A. is barred by period of limitation and the same be dismissed. We have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.
6. Looking to the pleadings of the parties and reasons given by the applicant, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing the O.A., more so, when it involves the career of the applicant. The delay in filing the O.A. is condoned.
7. We have perused the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure A -1), wherein it has been mentioned that the thumb impression of the applicant during document verification did not match with the thumb impression obtained during written and PET examination and Authority concerned took the view that 4 someone else had appeared in the Written and PET examination impersonating the applicant.
8. We have gone through the order dated 01.08.2018 passed in OA No.330/1349/2016, order dated 17.01.2018 passed in OA No.330/1492/2014 and order dated 01.09.2016 in OA No. 330/1112/2016. In the aforesaid OAs, it was alleged that thumb impression of applicant did not match with the written and PET examination and it was held that someone else had appeared in their places impersonating their candidatures. Considering the reply to the said show cause notice, the respondents had debarred him from appearing in all RRC (Railway Recruitment Cell)/RRB(Railway Recruitment Board) examinations in appointment in Railway for life time. In both the OAs respondents were directed to re-test the thumb impression by another laboratory. It was also directed that till the above said process of settling the issue of impersonation is being completed by the respondents, the applicant shall not be debarred from appearing in the examination conducted by the RRBs/RRCs.
9. In the instant OA, applicant has also cleared the written and PET examination but his candidature has been rejected on the ground of impersonation. Hence, the facts of the instant OA is identical to the O.A. No. 330/1349/16, OA Nos.330/1112/2016 and 330/1492/2014, therefore, the applicant is entitled for the same relief as granted in the aforesaid OAs though, his delayed approach to this Tribunal can be a factor in the present case since the admitted position is that the result of the examination of Examination Notice No. 01/2013 has been declared.
10. Accordingly, the instant OA is finally disposed off with the direction to the respondents to re-test the thumb impression and if the case of impersonation is not established, the applicant will not be barred from appearing in the subsequent examination 5 conducted by the respondents. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. During said process of settling the issue of impersonation, the applicants shall not be debarred from appearing in the examination conducted by the RRBs/RRCs. Looking to the fact that the results have already been announced for the year 2013 examination, applicant's prayer for appointment pursuant to the 2013 examination cannot be accepted. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MOHD. JAMSHED) (RAKESH SAGAR JAIN)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-