Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sachin Dadasaheb Sable C Rly vs M/O Railways on 13 October, 2017
1 OA.613/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.210/00613/2017 Date of decision : October 13, 2017 Coram: Hon'ble Shri Arvind J. Rohee, Member (J) Shri Sachin Dadasaheb Sable, Residing at: TV Centre N9 H6/3, Shri Krishna Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad - 431 001, Maharashtra and presently unemployed. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri Nirmal Shantibhushan ).
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The General Manager, Central Railways, C.S.T.M., Mumbai-400 001.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, Central Railway, Chief Project Manager (Conv.) Office, P. D'Mello Road, Wadi Bunder, Mumbai - 400010.
4. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Railway Divisional Compound, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008.
5. The Executive Director, Establishment (Railway Recruitment Control Board), Railway Board, Railway Ministry, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents. 2 OA.613/2017
Order (Oral) Today the Division Bench is not available and hence the matter is taken up before the Single Bench.
2. Heard Shri Shantibhushan Nirmal, learned Advocate for the applicant on behalf of M/s.Shantibhushan & Associates. I have carefully perused the case record.
3. In this O.A. the applicant has grievance regarding rejection of his candidature for the post applied by him in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 08.08.2013 issued by Central Railway Recruitment Cells, only on the ground that he has not mentioned the details of Indian Postal Order/Demand Draft in his application form.
4. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"8(i) Be pleased to declare the reason i.e. not providing IPO details in application form, given by the Respondent No.3 vide letter/order dated November 9, 2015 under RTI (at Annexure A-1 hereto) for treating the Applicant's application form invalid, after the Applicant qualifying in all stages of recruitment, is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to Para 8.2 of Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/C/2013 dated August 8, 2013 which only speak of enclosing of IPO to application form.
8(ii) Be pleased to declare that,
the rejection of Applicant's
candidature by Respondent No.3 vide 3 OA.613/2017 letter/order dated November 9, 2016 under Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/03/2013 dated August 8, 2013 after the Applicant successfully qualifying in all the stages of recruitment process, as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and in contravention of Para 6.3 of Annexure- I to Railway Board Letter dated July 18, 201 5 bearing No.E(NG)-II/96/RR- 1/62 which sets out obligation of the Respondent No.3 to process the application form before issuing Admit card and therefore the same be set aside.
8(iii) Be pleased to direct the Respondents, to hold good the application form of the Applicant complete in all respect in compliance of the Para 7 and 8 of the Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/03/2013 dated August 8, 2013 which speaks of enclosing IPO to application form and also considering that it is not even the case of the Respondent that IPO was not enclosed to the Applicant's application form.
8(iv) Be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the candidature of the Applicant under Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/03/2013 dated August 8, 2013.
8(v) Be pleased to issue direction to the Respondents to include the name of the Applicant in the Panel against Employment Notice No.RRC/CR/03/2013 dated August 8, 2013 and issue an appointment letter to the Applicant for the appropriate post considering his merits;
8(vi) Be pleased to call for the records of the case and examine the same;
8(vii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of 4 OA.613/2017 justice."
5. The record shows that in pursuance of the application submitted by the applicant, he was called for written test and has also cleared the medical test. However, since nothing was heard from the other end, he took recourse to the provisions of Right to Information Act and then vide impugned communication dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure A-1) he was informed that his candidature is rejected on the ground that he has not disclosed the details of the IPO annexed with the application form in it.
6. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, it is not specifically mentioned in the Advertisement (Annexure A-2) that it is necessary to disclose the details of the IPO. He invited attention of this Tribunal to the provisions of Clause (7) of the Advertisement, which simply states about submission of IPO of Rs.100/- along with application form. The applicant accordingly enclosed IPO of Rs.100/- with the application form. It is stated in Clause (8.2) of Advertisement that if IPO is not annexed or IPO of less valuation is supplied the application form will be liable to be rejected.
7. According to learned Advocate for applicant, since it is not specifically mentioned in instructions that details of IPO should be disclosed in Application 5 OA.613/2017 Form, he was not at fault. However in this connection the prescribed Application Form incorporated in the Advertisement itself, Clause (5) thereof speaks about the details of "IPO/DD No.____ dated ____an amount of Rs.100/- ____ name of Post Office/Bank and Place ___". The applicant has produced on record photocopy of the Application Form (Annexure A-3), Clause (5) thereof the details are not mentioned.
8. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that his Application Form should have been scrutinized before he was called for written test and the said exercise was done after the applicant successfully qualified the tests and was waiting for the appointment order.
9. However, simply because the applicant was allowed to appear in the test, lapse committed by him to disclose / mention details of IPO in Col. (5) of the prescribed Application Form cannot be overlooked. Lacs of application must have been received in pursuance of Advertisement and hence before finalising his name for being included in select list, the respondents have carried out the exercise of scrutinising and qualified the candidates in which it is found that the applicant has not disclosed the details of IPO and hence his candidature was rejected on that ground.
6 OA.613/2017
10. In such circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that simply because the applicant was allowed to take part in recruitment process and has successfully qualified tests, he should be considered for appointment and the impugned order of cancellation of his candidature as illegal, improper and incorrect in any manner whatsoever. In this respect, it may be mentioned that the respondents should have shown courtesy of communicating decision to the applicant after scrutiny of the Application Form that his candidature is rejected for failing to disclose details of IPO in it. He was required to take recourse to the provisions to RTI Act to know the reasons for rejection of his candidature. However, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents. Further it is settled law that no candidate has any vested right of appointment. He has only right to be considered. The applicant was so considered, but on scrutiny of his Application Form his candidature is rightly rejected for failing to disclose IPO details.
11. Considering the above factual position on record, no case for interference is made out. This Tribunal is of the considered view that the O.A. cannot be entertained on the above grounds and hence the same stands dismissed in limine, without issuing 7 OA.613/2017 notice to the respondents.
12. The Registry is directed to forward certified copy of this order to the applicant and the respondents at the earliest.
Place: Mumbai. (Arvind J. Rohee) Date : 13.10.2017. Member (J).
H.