Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjeev Kumar vs M/O Railways on 16 March, 2023
1
OA No. 229 of 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 229/2016
Reserved on: 02.03.2023
Pronounced on: 16.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Shri Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Shri Ram Pal Singh,
R/o Village Sunehra, Distt. Bagpat,
Teh. Khekra, Uttar Pradesh.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Kumar)
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Northern Railway, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi - 110 024.
2. Chairman,
Railway Road,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110 001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N.D. Kaushik)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-
1.1 Pursuant to Employment Notification No.220E/Open Mkt./RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013 published through Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) in Employment News of 11- 17 January, 2014 for open market recruitment of 5679 Group-D posts in Pay Band-1, Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1800, the applicant applied for the same under OBC 2 OA No. 229 of 2016 category. He was issued Roll No.40316221 to appear in the written examination and secured 81.67% marks. 1.2 The applicant, who appeared in the written examination was declared qualified for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and was found fit in PET as well. He also cleared the round of document verification. However, at the time of medical examination, on certain extraneous considerations, his medical examination was not done and he had to return without being medically examined.
1.3 It came as a surprise to the applicant when he was informed in December, 2015 that his case had been rejected due to 'mismatch in handwriting/signatures'. The aforesaid information was incorrect. Though the application form of the applicant was filled in by his cousin, Nandu, as the applicant was down with fever, but he duly signed the application form himself. Moreover, written examination and all other subsequent tests had been attended by the applicant himself. He has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before rejecting his candidature on account of the alleged 'mismatching of handwriting/ signatures', which is in violation of principles of natural justice.3
OA No. 229 of 2016 1.4 Aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"a. The impugned rejection by the respondents as contained in Annexure A-1 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the applicant for the Medical Examination.
b. That after Medical Examination if the applicant is found fit, the respondents may be directed to appoint him in the post applied for.
c. That the respondents may be directed to produce original records of the case relating to the applicant for perusal by the Hon'ble Court, if considered necessary, otherwise this Hon'ble Court may allow this O.A. at the admission stage itself.
d. such other further order/orders may be passed as this Hon'ble Court may consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA. Though the factual matrix of the applicant's case has not been disputed by the respondents, yet they have stated that Employment Notification clearly stipulated that the candidate should fill up the application form in his/her own handwriting. It was also specifically mentioned at column no.15 of the application form that the candidate has to copy the given declaration in his own handwriting but not in capital letters, in the space provided on the application form.
4OA No. 229 of 2016 2.1 As the applicant himself submitted in writing before the Document Verification Committee that his application form was filled up by his cousin and not by him, document expert advised that writing/signature of the applicant did not match on the relevant documents. Accordingly, applicant's candidature was rejected by the competent authority and status to this effect was uploaded on RRC official website for information of the candidate. 2.2 As far as violation of the principles of natural justice, as alleged by the applicant, is concerned, the respondents have stated that the principles of natural justice do not supplant the law but supplement the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [1994 (4) SCC 328] and to sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of the aforesaid principles as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syndicate Bank & Ors. vs. Venaktesh Gururao Kurati [JT 2006 (2) SC 73. They have further stated that the issue involved in the present OA is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in Deepak vs. UOI & Ors. [OA No.1355/HR/2013 decided on 09.07.2014]; a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Devendra Kumar vs. 5 OA No. 229 of 2016 General Manager/Northern Railway [OA No. 2356/2014 decided on 27.07.29015] and of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Sarwan Ram & Anr. [SLP No.706/2014 decided on 08.10.2014].
2.3 In view of the submissions made, decisions relied upon and the admission of the applicant that he had not filled the application form himself, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant OA being devoid of merit.
3. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder more or less reiterating and re-asserting the averments made in the OA.
4. We have heard Mr. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N.D. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the material on record as also the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for both the parties.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. UPSC [2016 (4) SCALE 573], which is not applicable in the instant case as the said case pertained to not enclosing the certificate in proof of the added qualification whereas in the instant case there is a clear admission of the applicant that he had not 6 OA No. 229 of 2016 filled the application form himself which is in violation of the prescribed instructions on the subject. 5.1 Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Sh. Sumit Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.215/2017 and batch matters decided on 21.02.2017] wherein applicants inadvertently forgot to mention medium in the relevant column in the answer sheet and realising their mistakes preferred representations. However, in the present case the applicant's admission of not filling the application form himself comes in his way. 5.2 In OA No.2837/2015 Ajay Sangwan vs. Union of India where the issue of mismatch of handwriting/ signatures was involved, we had disposed that with a direction to the respondents to send the documents of the applicant therein to CFSL for examination and take a final decision regarding the employment of the applicant therein in a Group-D post on the basis of CFSL's report. We would have given a similar direction in the instant OA also, but since the applicant has himself admitted that he had not filled up the application form himself, no fruitful purpose would be served directing the respondents to send applicant's documents to CFSL in view of the clear 7 OA No. 229 of 2016 admission of the applicant that he had not filled up the application form himself.
6. In view of the above discussion, we find that the instant OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member (J) Member (A) /na/