Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Satish Kumar vs M/O Railways on 13 February, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
M.A.NO.060/01353/2017 &
O.A.NO.060/01050/2017
Chandigarh, this the 13.02.2020
(Order reserved on: 17.01.2020)
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHD. JAMSHED, MEMBER (A)
Satish Kumar aged about 26 years (Group D), son of
Suresh resident of village and PO Julani, Tehsil and
Distt. Jind, Haryana.
Applicant
(BY: MR. JASBIR MOR, ADVOCATE)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Railway, Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Indian Railway, Govt. of India, Railway Bhawan,
Baroda House, New Delhi through its Chairman
(Both deleted vide order dated 8.1.2019).
3. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, northern
railway, Lajpat Nagar-I, new Delhi-110024.
4. Assistant Personnel officer/RRC, Railway
Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway, Lajpat Nagar-
I, New Delhi-110024.
(BY : MR. L.B. SINGH, ADVOCATE)
Respondents
2
ORDER
[HON'BLE SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)]
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.7.2015 (Annexure A-9), vide which his candidature for various posts in Pay Band-I in Railways, has been rejected due to mismatch in hand writing / signature etc.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents invited applications to fill up 7368 posts in Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/-, vide notice dated 30.8.2012 (Annexure A-1). The selection consisted of written examination / Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The applicant submitted his application dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure A-3), for various posts and was allotted Roll No. 20032311 (Control No. 1185666). Written test was conducted on 17.11.2013, result of which was declared on 5.2.2014. The applicant appeared for PET on 24.3.2014, in which he had qualified. Vide letter dated 21.4.2014, he was asked for document verification.
3. The case of the applicant was sent to Technical Experts for examination of documents and matching of hand writing / signature on application form OMR and 3 document verification papers. Ultimately, the applicant came to know that Expert Committee found mismatch in hand writing / signature on application form, OMR and document verification papers, as reported by Forensic Document Expert and as such his candidature was cancelled. The applicant sent a legal notice dated 2.3.2017 and an application under RTI Act, 2005 to supply him total marks secured by him. With regard to mismatch of signatures etc. the applicant was supplied requisite information vide letter dated 22.5.2017 (Annexure A-12).
4. The applicant challenges the impugned action of respondents on variety of grounds. The first plea taken is that it is in violation of principles of natural justice, as enquiry was conducted behind the back of the applicant and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The material which was not supplied to him cannot be used against him. He has not indulged in any unfair means. The applicant has himself filled up relevant forms and put his signatures at relevant places as is apparent from the naked eyes. The application form carried his photograph also. Thus, it was difficult 4 for anyone else to appear for him. There can be error in judgment by Expert committee. Hence, the O.A.
5. The contesting respondents have filed a reply. They submit that during processing of the case of applicant before the Document Verification Committee (DVC) of three Railway Officers nominated for the purpose, it was found that applicant prima -facie body mark of the candidate did not match and as such his case was included in the list that was to be send to find out genuineness of the candidature of the applicant. Thus, his case was got examined from Ex. Government Examiner for Questionable Documents nominated by Ministry of Railway with reference to matching of hand writing on relevant papers i.e. Application Form, OMR Sheet & D.V. papers containing samples of hand writing taken at various stages i.e. on application form at the time of submitting application to RRC, on OMR Sheet during written examination followed a sample taken by DVC during document verification. On receipt of report confirming mismatch in handwriting on application form in comparison to OMR and Document Verification performa, applicant's case was rejected by the competent authority with status uploaded in the form 5 of order on RRC website for the information of candidates, which is the main source of communication with the candidates as already notified in notification. The applicant was also found to be guilty of violation of examination condition as lot of erasing was done by him on OMR Sheet during examination. Thus, they support the impugned action.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on file including the original record produced by the official respondents.
7. Finding that the O.A. is barred by time, the applicant has moved an application for condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the O.A. The only plea taken by him is that during 2014 and 2015 he had paid several visits to respondents for final result but was informed that it is yet to be declared and as such he believed them and kept sitting at home. He came to know from other candidates who had appeared in Selection process in January, 2017, that result of that selection had been declared, when he went to a local Cyber Shop and downloaded the result and came to know of rejection of his candidature already on 20.7.2015.
6
8. It is not at all in dispute that for the purpose of selection in question, the Notice dated 30.8.2012 (Annexure A-1), clearly indicated in para 3 (L), that "RRC website www.rrcnr.org will be primary source of communication with the candidates including for crosschecking / validating of ineligibility / eligibility of the applications" and as per sub para (M), "candidates are therefore advised to remain in touch with RRC web site". It is not in dispute that the result including rejection of candidature of applicant was put on indicated site in 2015 itself and it was expected of the applicant to have remained in touch with the site which was primary source of information. Thus, the claim of applicant that he visited respondents on several occasion and was advised to wait for result is nothing but a plea, which is hard to digest and does not appeal to reasons, at all. In view of this, we find no grounds made out for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application and it is held to be barred by law of limitation, delay and laches.
9. Now, we proceed to deal with the other aspects of the matter that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and that the Committee should have 7 given him an opportunity of hearing to put his side of the case before rejecting his candidature. This part of the issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by our own jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court in CWP no. 12264-2016 titled PARVEEN KUMAR VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS, decided on 8.11.2016, which has upheld the decision taken by this Tribunal in O.A.No. 322/2016 decided on 22.4.2016. In that case also, the applicant had approached the Tribunal against the rejection of his candidature, on the ground of mismatch in handwriting/signature on application form, OMR and Document Verification Papers etc. A Bench of this Tribunal after due deleberation rejected the O.A. vide order dated 22.04.2016. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the same. The relevant paras of the order are reproduced as under :-
"5. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the employment notice does not create a right to be appointed to the post as per law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India as reiterated in Jatinder Kumar & others Vs. State of Punjab & others, (1985) 1 SCC 122 [3 Judges Bench]. The Apex Court held that the process for selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. Undisputedly, the petitioner was bound to fulfill all the mandatory conditions of the 8 employment notice and failure to comply with the same entitled the Competent Authority to reject any application, in accordance with law. For appreciation, reliance can be placed upon Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others, AIR 2012 SC 1803 and Union of India and another Vs. Sarwan Ram and another in Civil Appeal No. 9388 of 2014 (SLP (C) No. 706 of 2014 decided on 08.10.2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that it was always open to the competent authority to reject such application which is incomplete. The selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner has not levelled any allegations of unfairness or arbitrariness against anyone, even against the Government Expert who, gave his opinion against the petitioner which was made the basis of rejection of his candidature. The plea of the petitioner that principles of natural justice have been violated while rejecting his candidature has no force, because by this time, it is well settled that natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no each of natural justice can be complained of.
Reliance can be placed upon Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines, and another Vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC
965. The opinion obtained by the petitioner from a private hand-writing and finger-print expert cannot be made the legal basis for rejecting the opinion of Government Examiner from which respondents No. 2 to 4 sought opinion about the candidature of the petitioner.
7. In Sudhangshu Sekhar Biswas's case (supra), the Tribunal had set aside the rejection order of the candidature of the petitioner as the same was passed without assigning any reason and without any application of mind whereas in the instant case rejection order of the petitioner is well reasoned on the basis of report of hand-writing expert. In the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner the order cancelling the candidature of the petitioner(s) were passed without assigning any reason or without any application of mind and thus, no benefit of the same can be 9 given to the petitioner.
8. We have gone through the impugned order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P-1) and find no illegality or perversity in the same. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed."
10. Examining the case of the applicant in the light of observations made above, it is clear that merely because the applicant participated in the selection process, it did not create a right to be appointed to the post. He was bound to fulfill all the mandatory conditions of the employment notice and failure to comply with the same entitled the Competent Authority to reject any application, in accordance with law. In this case, when the competent DVB found that body marks mentioned by applicant did not match, his case was referred to experts who opined that there was mismatch in handwriting/signature on application form, OMR and Document Verification Papers and his candidature was rejected by the authorities. In view of this, one cannot find any fault with the action of the respondents.
11. The applicant has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P © No. 2140/2015 titled GOVIND YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 10 and bunch of cases, decided on 12.12.2017. In that case the issue was regarding mismatch thumb impressions which was basis for allegation of impersonation. The allegation of impersonation based on which candidature of petitioners was cancelled, was not born out from the record. The case in hand is totally different on facts as it is mismatch of hand writing / signature on application form, OMR Sheet and document verification papers etc. Thus, the said decision does not help the applicant, in any manner, more so when we have the benefit of a decision of our own jurisdictional High Court on the issue in hand.
12. In the wake of aforesaid prismatic reasons, this O.A. turns out to be barred by law of limitation, delay and laches, as well as bereft of any merit and is rejected. No costs.
(MOHD. JAMSHED) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 13.02.2020 HC*