Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs General Manager N C Rly on 18 September, 2024
OA No. 1469 of 2014
(Reserved on 12.09.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 18th day of September, 2024.
Original Application No. 330/01469/2014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
1. Dinesh Kumar Yadav son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Village
Bichhiya Khurd Post and District Chandauli.
2. Dhanesh Kumar Singh son of Balram Singh, Resident of Village
Chokiya, Post Office HANJADIPUR, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur,
U.P.
.....Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri V.K. Singh
Shri A.K. Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, NCR, North Central
Railway, Nabab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, NCR, Nabab Yusuf Road,
Allahabad.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer, RRC, NCR, Nabab Yusuf Road,
Allahabad.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vimal Kumar Rai
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vimal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
"(i) An order or direction quashing the cancellation of candidatures of the applicant dated 15.09.2014 issued by RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014 the Chairman, Railway Recruitment, NCR/Alld. Impugned Order to this Original Application with Compilation No.-1)
(ii). An order or direction to direct the respondent to allow the joining to the applicants in pursuant to selection of the applicant.
(iii) Pass any other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) And Heavy costs throughout of the petition of O.A. from the respondents."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Railway Recruitment Cell, NCR, Allahabad has notified Group-'D' Service under Employment No. 01/2010 and the applicants have applied for the said recruitment. It is further submitted that the Railway Recruitment Cell allotted Roll No.512208869 and 522205931 separately to applicants and examination was to be held on 10.06.2012 at 2.30 P.M. to 4.30 P.M. The examination centre was Smt. Phul Patti Devi Inter College, Bamhrauli, Allahabad and Unity College, 'A' Block, Kareily, Allahabad. The applicants qualified the said exam and they were allowed to participate in Physical Efficiency Test on 03.11.2012 and 05.11.2012. The applicants appeared in the Test and qualified and the date was fixed on 28.01.13 and 30.01.2013 for verification of the educational records. Applicants appeared for document verification and the records were found satisfactory in all respect. Thereafter, applicants were put up for Medical Test before the Central Hospital, North Centre Railway, Allahabad and they were found fit in medical examination. When the applicant was about to join the service, all of a sudden after 1 year and 1 month, a notice dated 17.02.2014 was served on 21.02.14. By the said notice dated 17.02.2014, the applicant was sought explanation as to why candidature of the applicant may not be cancelled due to (MIS USE OF OMR(DUPLICATE OMR Q.NO.55 & 119 HAS CROSS). According to the respondent no.2 in duplicate OMR, against question No.56 and 119, applicant has put cross. It RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014 is submitted that the applicant has never crossed any question, in case it has been crossed that question will carry negative marking. The applicant has submitted a detailed reply on 06.03.2014. The applicant no.2 has also been served a Memorandum dated 17.2.14. On 05.03.2014, the applicant no.2 has categorically submitted his reply stating that there is no deliberate mistake on his part, in case it is found that there is mistake maximum against the said Question No.52, a negative marks be allotted to him, instead cancellation of the candidature. During the course of Written Examination two OMR Sheet provided to the applicant 1st is Main Sheet and Second one is Carbon Copy. The applicant considered that he will have to submit the First Sheet to the invigilator and so far as Second Sheet (Carbon Copy) is to be retained by him. It is further submitted that both the Sheet should be blackened against the Answer Sheet, should be same but the applicant has blackened at the box but when come to know that perhaps it is wrong hence corrected the OMR Ist Sheet, but Carbon Copy could not be corrected accordingly. On 15.09.2014, the Chairman without considering the explanation of the applicant against the Memorandum and without considering the bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant, the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled vide order dated 15.9.2014. It is also submitted that the respondent no.2 without examining the facts and circumstances of the case as explained by applicants has cancelled the candidature of the applicants therefore, the said order is non-speaking and non reasoned, hence liable to be set aside. Hence, this OA.
4. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the Railway Recruitment Cell/NCR/ALD had conducted written examination and efficiency test for Employment Notice No.01/2010 against 4692 published vacancies, therein, the applicants were declared qualified along with others. Thereafter, total 4692+20% extra eligible candidates as per merit have been RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014 called for document verification and medical test. The applicants were also called for document verification and medical test, therein, it was noticed that both of them failed to adhere the instructions laid down in Serial No. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 13 on the back side of the OMR sheet while filling the bubbles of OMR sheet, which is being quoted below:-
PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING ANY ENTRY IN THE ANSWER SHEET (OMR):-
2. Use Blue/Black Ball Point Pen only. Pencils & Gel pens are not allowed. It is not required to darken the second copy separately.
3. Do not put any stray marks anywhere on the OMR answer sheet. Use of any other paper, calculating machine & mobile etc. is prohibited and shall load to disqualification.
4. Your OMR answer sheet shall be evaluated through electronic scanning process. Incomplete and incorrect entries may render your OMR answer sheet invalid.
5. Carefully fill up all the necessary particulars in the OMR answer sheet. Change in OMR answer sheet is not permitted.
13. Failure to adhere to instructions above will render your OMR answer sheet as invalid and it will not be evaluated.
5. It is further submitted that having failed to follow the instructions both of them were not considered to be placed in the select list of eligible candidates and their candidature also declared as cancelled by the competent authority vide order dated 15.09.2014. While filling the bubbles of OMR, they have failed to adhere to prescribed rules of the Employment Notice No.01/2010 as provided by Railway Board/NDLS and under column no. 13, their OMR sheets have been rendered as invalid by the verifying official, hence, their OMR were not evaluated. Thereafter, show cause notices dated 17.02.2014 were served to both of them due to violation of prescribed instructions. It is submitted that the grounds taken by applicants are not tenable in the eyes of law because both of them have not adhered to the instruction mentioned in column no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of OMR sheet. It is pointed out that both of them have put stray marks knowingly which lead to RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014 issue this impugned order dated 15.09.2014 for cancellation of their candidature whereas if they filled wrong bubbles in OMR sheet 1/3 negative marks will be deducted for each wrong answer. Both of them have violated the prescribed instructions, therefore, as earlier informed through Employment Notice No. 01/2010 and also indicated on the back side of OMR i.e. answer sheet, they have committed such mistake knowingly. On receipt of replies of show cause notices, RRC/NCR/ALD informed factual action taken by the competent authority of RRC/NCR/ALD to applicants vide letter RRC/ALD/Recruitment/Panel/EN no. No.1/2010 dated 15.09.2014. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
6. In their rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have narrated almost the similar points and added that applicants were found competent and eligible therefore they have been called for verification of Academic Records. It is further submitted that the applicants have followed the instructions laid down for filling up of the OMR Sheets and on that basis the applicants were selected but after 13 months, notice dated 17.02.2014 was issued against the applicants to show cause, if any mistake/ fraud was committed by the applicants, the respondents should not have waited for 13 months in giving show cause notice, it makes crystal clear that there is manipulation in the record of the applicants by the respondent for ulterior purposes.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Writ-A No.23914 of 2016 in the case of Vijeta Singh Vs. State of UP and ors. decided on 11.07.2016 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla and ors. Vs. State of UP and ors. decided on 19.01.2016 in Civil Appeal No.587-588 of 2016. RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014
8. Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available in this OA.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment in Writ-A No.23914 of 2016 in the case of Vijeta Singh Vs. State of UP and ors. decided on 11.07.2016. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has disposed of Writ-A with direction on the lines of a case decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.587-588 of 2016 in the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. The Civil Appeal No.587 -588 of 2016 was decided by Hon'ble Apex Court which is regarding selection of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) by Government of U.P. in which the candidature of certain candidates were rejected as their answer sheet was found use of whitener/blade in OMR Sheet. On the learned A.G. of Government of U.P. have submitted that respondents will consider the candidate in the merit list who were not selected due to use of whitener/blade in their OMR sheet as a onetime measure. The above suggestion of learned counsel for the respondents was accepted by the Apex Court and appeals were disposed of accordingly.
10. A careful analyses of facts and submissions and the rival submissions, indicates that answer sheet of applicants were evaluated, they were called for efficiency test and found suitable then they were called for document verification. Their document was verified and on being satisfied, the respondents have sent them for medical examination. The medical examination was also conducted and they were found medically fit. The certificate issued by medical authorities has been enclosed and not disputed by the respondents.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 7 OA No. 1469 of 2014
11. The conditions relied upon by the respondents, which are the instructions prescribed on the back side of the OMR sheet appears to be not followed carefully by the applicant. The condition No.13 clearly indicates that "Failure to adhere to instructions above will render your OMR answer sheet as invalid and it will not be evaluated." On the basis of non adherence to the instructions by applicants, the respondents were free to treat the answer sheet of the applicant as invalid and they should not have evaluated the answer sheet. Here, in this case rejecting the candidature of the applicant after evaluation of answer sheet, conduct of efficiency test, verification of document and conduct of medication examination; clearly shows that the respondents have also not followed the instructions on the back sheet of OMR scrupously. In the above case, the balance of convenience is in favour of applicant and we feel it will be appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors in Civil Appeal No.587 -588 of 2016. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. The above exercise shall be completed and necessary follow up action shall be taken and communicated to applicants within three months from the receipt of this order. No order as to costs.
12. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 7