Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Virendra Kumar Meena vs North Western Railway on 11 April, 2023
OA NO. 333/2021 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 333/2021
Order Reserved on: 23.03.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 11.04.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Virendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ratiram Meena, aged
about 30 years, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Unch, Tehsil
Nandbai, District Bharatpur presently working on the
post of Pointsman, under Station Superintendent
North Western Railway, Alwar (All Regular Group-C or
Erstwhile Group-D Employees of North Western
Railway).
....Applicant
Shri R.S. Bhardwaj, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura,
Jaipur-302018.
2. Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur-
302016.
3. Ramesh Giri (Roll No. 14230267) Sr. Commercial
cum Ticket Clerk Category No. 5, through
Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Western Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur-
302016.
.... Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
OA NO. 333/2021 2
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 seeking for the following reliefs:-
"i) call for the entire record relating to the applicant under notification No. 2/2019
ii) The impugned reply under RTI Act dated
2.9.2021 and notice dated 17.9.2021 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and also quashed the final panels dated 18.8.2021 prepared by the respondents for the post of Sr. Commercial cum Ticket Clerk and Commercial cum ticket clerk.
iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to very the documents of applicant and give him appointment on any post according to give preference by the applicant while submitting online application form looking to higher marks i.e. Sr. Commercial cum ticket clerk or commercial cum ticket clerk with all consequential benefits.
iv) Any other directions and orders, which deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed to the applicant."
2(a). The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, is that he is presently working on the post of Pointsman under Station Superintendent, NWR, Alwar. The respondent-department had issued Notification No. 2/2019 for recruitment on various Group 'C' posts and as the applicant was qualified and OA NO. 333/2021 3 eligible for recruitment for the said posts, he had applied for the same and also gave preference for the post of Senior Commercial-cum-Ticket Clerk, Senior Clerk cum Typist, Commercial cum Ticket Clerk, Goods Guard, Junior Clerk cum Typist. Separate call letters were issued by the official respondents for appearing in Computer Based Test for Junior Clerk cum Typist, Commercial cum Typist Clerk (Cat. 1) and Senior Clerk cum Typist, Senior Commercial cum Ticket Clerk, Goods Guard (Cat.III). The applicant participated in the recruitment process and the respondents declared result of the said examination. The applicant secured 70.12245 marks in Post Category-1 and 77.38 marks in Post Category-3. Thereafter, respondent-department issued separate provisional list of candidates vide which names of the candidates were shortlisted for skill test in which name of the applicant has also been included. Thereafter, official respondents have also issued call letter for Computer Based Typing Test in which the applicant participated on 04.12.2020 for both posts separately. The respondents have declared separate result of typing test on 24.03.2021 and the applicant has been declared failed in typing test for both posts i.e. Junior Clerk cum Typist and Senior Clerk cum Typist. OA NO. 333/2021 4 2(b). The applicant further stated that as per letter dated 15.06.2021 issued by the official respondents, there was a direction given for documents verification and eligible candidates were called for the same in which his name stands at Sl. No. 109. The applicant was called for the post of Sr. Commercial cum Ticket Clerk held on 30.06.2021 for documents verification in which he also participated. After completion of selection process, official respondents have prepared final panel of eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Senior Commercial cum Ticket Clerk wherein cut off marks for General category is 77.04 and cut off marks in ST category is 72.04. The cut off marks for the post of Commercial cum Ticket Clerk in UR category is 74.18 and in ST category is 69.11. But the applicant has been ousted from both the lists in spite of securing much more marks than General and ST category for both the posts. Thereafter, applicant made application under RTI Act regarding his non- selection for the said posts in spite of securing much more marks and the respondent-department vide letter dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure A/1) stated that candidature of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that biometric of applicant taken at the time of verification of documents did not match with the OA NO. 333/2021 5 biometric taken at the time of CBT. Thereafter, the applicant again made an application under RTI Act and sought Video Clipping of the examination and other relevant documents of CBT exam 1st and 3rd shift and type test 1st and 2nd shift and documents verification. He also submitted representations dated 19.08.2021 and 26.08.2021 and asked the official respondents to consider his candidature by verifying him from Videography but no action was taken by the official respondents. Thereafter, the respondent-department served impugned notice dated 17.09.2021 (Annexure A/2) to the applicant by mentioning that the matter of the applicant regarding mismatch of his biometric was sent to the Ex-govt. Examiner for opinion and as per the opinion, biometric of applicant taken at the time of CBT and document verification were mismatched and, therefore, he will be debarred in future examination of Railway Recruitment. The applicant submitted his reply to the said impugned notice to official respondents through E-mail but since there was no reply thereafter from the respondent-department and as the official respondents did not consider his candidature, the applicant, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-department, has filed the present Original Application for redressal of his OA NO. 333/2021 6 grievance praying for appointment to the post of Senior Commercial cum Ticket Clerk or Commercial cum Ticket Clerk including other reliefs. 3(a). After issue of notices, official respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed their reply stating that the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Western Railway, Jaipur had issued an advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 17.06.2019 for conducting Common Departmental Competitive Examination for the purpose of filling up various vacancies in Group 'C' posts. The applicant also applied online as per the advertisement. A Computer Based Test (CBT) was conducted for the purpose of filling up vacancies for the said posts and on the basis of marks obtained by the present applicant, he was declared eligible for the purpose of documents verification. In order to confirm the identity of the applicants during documents verification, the Biometric Attendance / Fingerprint which were taken during the Computer Based Test were computerized checked by the appropriate agency. It was further stated that Biometric Attendance / Fingerprint which were taken by the present applicant during the Computer Based Test did not match with the Biometric / Fingerprint of the present applicant which were taken during the OA NO. 333/2021 7 documents verification. It was also stated by the respondent-department that the paragraph which was written by the applicant over the Counter Foil of the E- Call letter, which was issued for Computer Based Test, the handwriting of the same and the handwriting of paragraph which was written by the applicant over the bio-data sheet during the process of Documents Verification, both the handwritings were got checked by the Handwriting Expert and it was stated by the Handwriting Expert in their opinion/report that the handwriting of the applicant during the computer based test did not match with the handwriting of the applicant during the process of Documents Verification. Hence, eligibility of the present applicant was cancelled and because of the same, he was not enrolled in the provisional panel.
3(b). The official respondents have relied upon the judgment and order 24.08.2021 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 634/2013 in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma vs. UOI & Ors. The respondents stated that this is a similar matter wherein this Tribunal has observed that the Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Forum to verify the genuineness and correctness of the report of an expert i.e. the Ex- OA NO. 333/2021 8 GEQD who is specialised in the same. Therefore, the respondents stated that candidature of the present applicant has been rightly cancelled. The official respondents have also relied upon the order and judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1283/2016 in the case of Niraj Siwach vs. UOI & Anr. wherein this Tribunal in an identical matter has rejected the claim of the applicant therein on the basis of Expert Advice from Ex. Govt. Examiner for Questionable Documents, who found mismatch in the handwriting/signature and, thus, the candidature of that applicant was also rejected by the respondents and the O.A. was dismissed by this Tribunal relying upon the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal. The official respondents stated that since identical issue has already been decided, therefore, the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder stating that he himself had appeared in the computer based test and at that time his biometric attendance / fingerprint were taken which is clearly evident from the C.C.T.V. Camera footage which has been received by the OA NO. 333/2021 9 applicant in Pen Drive under RTI Act. The applicant further states that fingerprint as well as handwriting of the applicant were not properly checked by the official respondents and as per Pen Drive of the CCTV Camera footage provided by the respondents under RTI Act and photograph, it is clear that the applicant himself appeared in the said test and so submission of the respondent-department that during documents verification, signature of the applicant was found mismatched with the signature of the applicant in the Computer Based Test, cannot be accepted. The applicant further stated that official respondents did not examine the handwriting of the applicant from the Govt. agency and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and against Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, he prayed that the present O.A. be allowed. The applicant has relied upon the judgment and order dated 17.02.2023 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 280/2016 in the case of Devender Singh vs. The Chairman & Anr. and stated that in an identical case, this Tribunal has disposed of the O.A. and directed the respondents to send the documents of the applicant to the CFSL for examination and for their report so as to establish that the applicant had himself given the OA NO. 333/2021 10 examination or otherwise and on the basis of the said decision, Railway Authority to take a final decision with regard to the employment of the applicant in Group-D post. The applicant has also relied upon the order and judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 28128 of 2022 in the case of Pahalwan vs. State of Haryana and others and further stated that in an identical case of mismatch of signature, the Hon'ble High Court had partly allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish his current biometric impression which would be matched with the biometric impression obtained at the time of entry to the examination and further directed that in case the same do not match then the impugned orders would be held to be valid.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the pleadings brought on record including the judgments/orders cited by the respective parties.
6. The applicant and respondents have reiterated their stand as taken earlier.
OA NO. 333/2021 11
7. Since the facts of the case regarding submitting of online application form by the applicant pursuant to Employment Notice No. 02/2019 dated 17.06.2019 issued by Railway Recruitment Cell, North Western Railway, Jaipur for filling up vacancies against General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE) quota and the applicant qualified the same are not in dispute, we would like to go into the main questions as to whether rejection of the candidature of the applicant on the grounds that biometric attendance / fingerprint, which were taken by the applicant during the computer based test did not match with the biometric / fingerprint of the applicant, which were taken during the documents verification and also that the handwritings of the applicant, while writing paragraph by the applicant over the Counter Foil of E- Cal letter during the Computer Based Test did not match with the handwriting of the applicant over the bio-data sheet during the process of documents verification, are justified or not.
8. It is seen that on the basis of marks obtained in the Computer Based Test, applicant was called for the purpose of documents verification for the posts of Senior Commercial Cum Ticket Clerk and Commercial OA NO. 333/2021 12 Cum Ticket Clerk. It is also seen that in order to confirm the identity of the applicant during documents verification, the biometric attendance / fingerprint, which were taken during the Computer Based Test, were computerized checked by the appropriate agency and it was noticed that biometric attendance / fingerprint, which were taken by the applicant during Computer Based Test did not match with the Biometric / Fingerprint of the applicant, which were taken during the documents verification. Thereafter, the paragraph which was written by the applicant over the Counter Foil of the E-Call letter, which was issued for the Computer Based Test, the handwriting of the same and the handwriting of paragraph, which was written by the applicant over the bio-data sheet during the process of documents verification, both the handwritings were got checked by the Handwriting Expert and it was stated by the Handwriting Expert in their opinion / report that the handwriting of the applicant during the Computer Based Test did not match with the handwriting of the applicant during the process of documents verification. Therefore, on the basis of the above, the eligibility of the applicant was cancelled and because of the same, he was not enrolled in the provisional panel.
OA NO. 333/2021 13
9. We have also gone through the opinion dated 28/29.07.2021 (Annexure R/1), given by Ex-Director (Ex-Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents), Directorate of Forensic Science, Hyderabad, Senior Handwriting Expert, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, which reads as under: -
"No. SCG/06/21 Dated 28/29.07.2021
OPINION
The Chairman RRC,
NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
JAIPUR
Your letter No. 740E/RRC/GP-1800/02-2018/Ex-GEQD dated 27-7-2021 The documents relating to the recruitment of the person called 'VIRENDRA KUMAR MEENA' of Roll no. 13232286, have been carefully and thoroughly examined with the help of available scientific instruments in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery. In my opinion:
1. Writer of red enclosed writings and signatures stamped marked S1 (on Bio-Data Form for Documents Verification), did not write red enclosed writings and signature marked Q1 (on E-Call Letter for CBT).
-Sd/-
(S.C. GUPTA) (EX-GOVERNMENT EXAMINER OF QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS)"
From the above, it is seen that the Senior Handwriting Expert / Ex-Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, has opined that Writer of red enclosed writings and signatures stamped marked S1 (on Bio-Data Form for Documents Verification), did not write red enclosed writings and signature marked Q1 (on E-Call Letter for CBT). Thus, the respondents, OA NO. 333/2021 14 on the basis of the said opinion / report of the handwriting expert, cancelled the eligibility of the applicant.
10. It is the submission of the official respondents that after following due procedure for getting matched the biometric / fingerprint and handwriting of the applicant by the experts and appropriate authorities and as per their opinion and report that the biometric / fingerprint and handwriting of the applicant are different during the Computer Based Test and during the process of documents verification and as the same did not match, candidature of the applicant was cancelled and the same was intimated to the applicant in reply to his application under RTI Act. Further, it is submission of the respondents that it has been specifically proved that faces of two different people may look the same but fingerprint and handwriting of two different people can never be the same and because of this, the biometric and handwriting of the applicant did not match when being investigated. Therefore, there is no scope left for getting the Videography being investigated.
OA NO. 333/2021 15
11. Coming to the grounds raised by the applicant that he himself had appeared in the Computer Based Examination and has also put his left hand thumb impression at the time of typing test and also participated in the examination as well as appeared during the documents verification and that the respondents have rejected his candidature illegally, cannot be accepted as it is on the basis of the opinion given by Senior Handwriting Expert and Ex- Government Examiner of Questioned Documents that writings and signatures on Bio-Data Form for Documents Verification did not match with the writings and signature on E-Call Letter for CBT. Thus, the respondents have rightly taken a decision to reject the candidature of the applicant.
12. Coming to the judgment and order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Devender Singh (supra), as relied upon by the applicant, it is seen that the facts of the said case are completely different to the facts of the present case. It is seen that few columns of the application form in the said case was filled by his younger brother and rest of the application form was filled by the applicant himself. In that case, there was no mismatch of the OA NO. 333/2021 16 signatures as in the present case writings and signatures on Bio-Data Form for Documents Verification did not match with the writings and signature on E-Call Letter for CBT and so in the said case, direction was issued to the respondents to send the documents of that applicant to CFSL for examination. But in the present case, the official respondents have already sent the documents of the applicant to the Handwriting Expert and it is on the basis of the said opinion, respondent-department has rejected the candidature of the applicant.
13. Coming to the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Pahalwan (supra), as relied upon by the applicant, it is seen that the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. In that case, biometric impression did not match with his biometric impression obtained at the time of entry to the written examination and it was the case of the applicant therein that this mismatch has occurred due to some error in the system and so the Hon'ble High Court has observed that it would be in the interest of justice if he be allowed to give another chance for biometric impression which would be matched with the OA NO. 333/2021 17 biometric impression obtained at the time of entry to the examination. In that case also, the Hon'ble High Court had opined that in case the impressions do not match, then the impugned orders would be held to be valid. But in the present case, we do not find any error in the system so the facts of that case are different from the present case.
14. Coming to the judgments and orders passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma (supra), as relied upon by the respondents, we are of the view that facts of that case are exactly identical to the present case. In the said case also, the handwriting / signature of the applicant in the application form did not match with the signature / handwriting on OMR sheet and so opinion was taken from Ex-GEQD, who opined that the signature are mismatch and thus the eligibility of the applicant was rejected. Therefore, it was held that Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Forum to verify the genuineness and correctness of the report of an expert i.e. the Ex- GEQD, who is specialized in the same. In the present case also, on noticing mismatch in the paragraph which was written by the applicant over the Counter Foil of the E-Call Letter, which was issued for the OA NO. 333/2021 18 Computer Based Test and the handwriting of paragraph, which was written by the applicant over the bio-data sheet during the process of documents verification, both the documents were sent to Ex- Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (Ex- GEQD), who opined that writings and signatures on Bio-Data Form for Documents Verification did not match with writings and signature on E-Call Letter for CBT and, thus, the eligibility of the applicant was rejected. In view of the above analysis, this Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Forum to verify the genuineness and correctness of the report of an expert i.e. the Ex-GEQD, who is specialized in the same.
15. We have also gone through the judgments and orders passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Niraj Siwach (supra), as relied upon by the respondents and we are of the view that the facts of that case are also similar to the facts of the present case. In the said case, it was decided by the respondents to get the expert advice from Ex. Govt. Examiner for Questionable Documents duly nominated by Ministry of Railway for the purpose with reference to matching of handwriting / signature on the relevant OA NO. 333/2021 19 papers on which sample of handwriting taken at various stages of the recruitment i.e. Application Form, OMR Sheet and Document Verification Performa. The Document Expert advised that writing of the applicant herein do not match on the relevant papers and accordingly case of the applicant therein was rejected by the competent authority i.e. the Chairman/RRC. This Tribunal after having considered the facts and circumstances of that case as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal in various cases, as relied upon by the respondents, has dismissed the said Original Application.
16. In the present case, when the respondents found that there was mismatch in the handwriting of the applicant while writing paragraph by the applicant over the Counter Foil of the E-Call Letter, which was issued for the Computer Based Test and the handwriting of paragraph, which was written by the applicant over the bio-data sheet during the process of documents verification, both the documents were sent to the handwriting expert and thereafter, handwriting expert has given its opinion and found that there is mismatch. Therefore, it is clear that OA NO. 333/2021 20 principles of natural justice were followed by official respondents and, thus, it cannot be said that the candidature of the applicant was illegally and arbitrarily rejected.
17. On the basis of the observations made hereinabove, it is clear that there requires no interference by this Tribunal in the action of the official respondents as their action appears to be just and proper. The Original Application being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/