Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Karmjeet vs M/O Railways on 27 September, 2022
1
OA No. 2248/2016
Item No.31
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2248/2016
This the 27th day of September, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Karamjeet, Age-21 years
S/o Rajbir Singh
Roll No.-30014881
Control No.11266020
VPO Dadam, Teh-Toshan
Distt. Bhiwani
Haryana-132001.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Chauhan for Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Ministry of Railway
Govt. of India through
The Chairman
Railway Board
Rail Bhawan
1, Rafi Marg
New Delhi-110001.
2. The General Manager (P)
Northern Railway/
Headquarters Office
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Personnel Officer (RRC)
Railway Recruitment Cell
Lajpat Nagar-I
New Delhi-110024.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sona Kumar)
2
OA No. 2248/2016
Item No.31
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant participated in the recruitment for Group-D post in the Northern Railway. He was successful in the written test and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). However, during the course of verification of documents, the respondents raised a doubt with regard to mismatch in handwriting and signatures and referred the matter to the Forensic Document Expert, who opined that the handwriting/ signatures on the documents, namely, application form, OMR sheet and document verification data, did not match with each other.
2. Respondents in their counter reply submitted that the admission of a candidate at all stages was purely provisional, subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions. The applicant appeared in the written examination and PET, which were qualifying in nature. Thereafter, he was called for document verification and medical examination. It was also made clear to him that calling of a candidate for document verification does not confer any right upon the concerned candidate for medical examination or appointment on any post under the respondents. The Forensic Document Expert conducted verification of 3 OA No. 2248/2016 Item No.31 documents and during this process, it was observed that the signature of the applicant on the application form and other documents did not match.
3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Chauhan, proxy counsel for Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sona Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for both the parties submit that the issue raised in this O.A. is squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3628/2013 titled Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Anr., dated 09.11.2021, wherein this Tribunal after meticulously considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, directed as follows:-
"10. The grievance raised before this Tribunal is that the applicant is not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of the opinion of the so called expert. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that it would meet the ends of justice if the documents annexures R-1 to R-3 be sent to the CFSL for examination by the Railway authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. On receipt of the request of the Railway authority, the CFSL shall give their report in this regard within a period of six weeks thereafter to the Railway authority, on the basis of which the Railway authority shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant in Group-D post."
5. In view of the above, we are satisfied that this O.A. can also be disposed of in terms of the directions given in OA No. 4 OA No. 2248/2016 Item No.31 3628/2013, as reproduced above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to send the documents of the applicant to the CFSL for examination within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the request of the Railway Authority, the CFSL shall give their report in this regard within a period of six weeks therefrom to the Railway Authority, on the basis of which the Railway Authority shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant in Group-D post.
6. With the above observations, the O.A. stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Mohd. Jamshed)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jyoti/