Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Praveen Kumar vs M/O Railways on 15 November, 2021
1
OA No. 417/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 417/2013
Order reserved on 11.11.2021
DATE OF ORDER: 15.11.2021
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Praveen Kumar son of Pramod, aged about 24 years,
resident of Village Kapasi, Post Hasanpur, District
Sharahanpur, U.P.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
Union of India through its General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
.... Respondent
Shri D.K. Pathak, counsel for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore prayed that;2 OA No. 417/2013
i) the present original application may kindly be allowed and directions may be issued to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant on the post advertised in the advertisement dated 16.12.2010.
(ii) any other order or direction which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Cost of this original application also may be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the respondent-department had issued an Employment Notice No. 02/2010 dated 16.12.2010 for filling up several Group 'D' posts in Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- and the applicant who belonged to SC category had applied for the same as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination and after qualifying the same, he appeared for physical test and, thereafter, he was called for documents verification. On that day, he was informed that somewhere in the form, he has mentioned his name, Pramod Kumar son of Praveen Kumar instead of Praveen Kumar son of Pramod Kumar and, therefore, his candidature was rejected. He was denied appointment but persons lower in merit were thereafter given appointment. It is the case of 3 OA No. 417/2013 the applicant that in all call letters and information available on internet, it is clearly mentioned as Praveen Kumar son of Pramod Kumar against his Roll No. 62001243. Though no order was given to the applicant in writing about rejection of his case but he was informed that he is not entitled for appointment in view of the name wrongly mentioned. Thereafter, immediately, the applicant submitted an Affidavit, but the same was not considered by the respondent- department. Therefore, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent-department in non- inclusion of the name of the applicant in the final result for the Group 'D' post, he has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
3. This Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.05.2013 had issued notices to the respondents and had passed interim order to the extent that respondents were directed to keep one post vacant under the advertisement dated 16.12.2010 for the applicant and the said interim relief continued till date.
4. After issuing notices, the respondent-department filed reply to the O.A. stating that the applicant is not entitled for getting appointment in view of provisions contained in para 8.11 of the Notification dated 4 OA No. 417/2013 16.12.2010, which clearly enumerates that application form will be rejected grossly in case of any mistakes/irregularities in the application form and applicant had submitted wrongly his name in column No. 2 at the place of name of his father, which did not match with the documents. As such, the application form of the applicant was rejected at the time of documents verification. Thus, candidature of the applicant has been rejected as per specific condition mentioned in the advertisement and, therefore, there is no illegality in rejecting the application form of the applicant. The stand taken by the applicant that he had qualified at all stages and, therefore, he is eligible to be appointed cannot hold good. Therefore, the applicant has no claim for the said post and the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the said ground itself and the interim order dated 27.05.2013 be vacated as their action is in consonance with the rules.
5. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the submissions of the respondent-department.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely as well as the judgments cited by the applicant.
5OA No. 417/2013
7. The applicant and the respondent reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
8. The question which requires to be considered is whether the candidature of the applicant ought to have been cancelled on the ground of human error/ bonafide mistake in submitting his name in place of his father's name in the column no. 2 of the application form and when he has already been protected by the interim directions and when no third party rights are affected.
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, being an S.C. category candidate, after fulfilling the criteria as required, had applied for the Group 'D' post in pursuance to the Employment Notice No. 02/2010 dated 16.12.2010. He was given a call letter and had appeared in the written examination and after qualifying the same, he appeared in physical test, which also he cleared. Thereafter, he was called for documents verification, and during documents verification, it came to the notice of the respondent- department that in the application form, incorrect information is given as in column No. 2 of the application form, in place of name of his father, 6 OA No. 417/2013 applicant has written his name as Praveen Kumar while as per documents, his father's name was Pramod Kumar.
10. After going through the case of the applicant, we see that the stand taken by the respondent- department is that as per provisions contained in para 8.11 of the Employment Notice No. 02/2010 dated 16.12.2010, if there is any deficiency, discrepancy or irregularity found in the application form, the same will be summarily rejected. As such, the application form of the applicant dated 25.01.2011 was treated as invalid/ineligible by the competent authority and the same has been rejected. Thus, as the candidature of the applicant was rejected as per specific condition mentioned in the Notification dated 16.12.2010 and, as such, there is no illegality in rejecting the application form of the applicant.
11. It is seen that the applicant belongs to S.C. Category and he committed an error in writing his own name in place of his father's name. At column No. 2 of the application form, the applicant instead of writing his father's name as 'Pramod Kumar', he wrote his name as 'Praveen Kumar'. It is clear that it is a bonafide mistake and a human error committed by 7 OA No. 417/2013 him. At the time of documents verification, when the respondent-department from available documents found that name of father is Pramod Kumar and instead it was found as Praveen Kumar, they rejected his application form. But it is clear that it was his inadvertent mistake while writing name of his father, he has written his own name.
12. It is trite law that even in administrative matters, if decision adversely affects a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provisions for giving an opportunity, the principles of natural justice is inbuilt. Though it is true that that the advertisement clearly stated that the candidates are required to be cautious in filling application forms and any mistake/error would debar such applications, but due to the bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant which he tried to rectify the same by producing an Affidavit, the respondent-department should have allowed the said correction, but the same was not done. It is clear that while filling the application form, human error cannot be completely ruled out and the applicant, therefore, should not be penalised so harshly for such an error. A candidate, whose marks 8 OA No. 417/2013 are above cut off marks or is in merit deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error. As such, in the present case, the bonafide mistake committed by the applicant in writing his name in place of his father's name, the application form deserves to be rectified /corrected and he should be allowed to rectify the error. Also in the present case, no third party rights are affected as the applicant is having interim protection in his favour vide order dated 27.05.2013 whereby the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant under the advertisement dated 16.12.2010 for the applicant.
13. It is clear that a human error can be rectified provided no third party right is affected and we are in agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Kavita Choudhary vs. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017] decided on 01.11.2017, cited by the applicant, wherein it has been held that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party right should be allowed to be cured and rectification of a mistake would cause no prejudice. In the said judgment, reliance was placed 9 OA No. 417/2013 on several judgments including the judgments in the cases of State of Rajasthan vs. Datar Singh (D.B.S.A.W. No. 875/2012) decided on 31.07.2013, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar vs. RPSC & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7159/2017) decided on 11.10.2017.
14. In view of the observations made herein-above, the action of the respondent-department calls for interference and, therefore, the respondent- department is directed to permit the applicant to carry out necessary corrections in the application form and, accordingly, allow the applicant to participate in further selection process i.e. medical examination also in view of the interim protection granted to the applicant vide order dated 27.05.2013 and if otherwise found suitable, he may be given appointment on the Group 'D' post in Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- with all consequential benefits. The said exercise be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/