Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ram Sahay Meena vs Union Of India on 25 July, 2011
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH Jaipur, this the 25th day of July, 2011 OA No. 38/2009 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE, MEMBER (JUDL.) HONBLE MR. ANIL KUMAR, MEMBER (ADMV.) Ram Sahay Meena s/o Shri Rampal Meena, r/o Raghunathganj, Post Samidhi, Tehsil Nainwa, Distt. Bundi. .. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Nand Kishore) Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager, North Western Railway, Hasanpura Road, Jaipur. 2. The Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment), North Western Railway, Railway Recruitment Room, Durgapura, Jaipur .. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri V.S.Gurjar) O R D E R (ORAL)
The short controversy involved in this OA is that the applicant applied for appointment on the post of Group-D pursuant to advertisement published on 28.7.2007. He was declared successful in the physical examination held on 3.1.2008. Thereafter he appeared in the written examination held on 4.5.2008. It is submitted that the applicant secured 127.33 marks out of 150 marks whereas the applicant being ST candidate and for this category the cut off marks are 124.
2. The controversy arose when the respondents rejected candidature of the applicant on ground No.10 of letter Ann.A/1 issued in May, 2008. The case of the applicant is that ground No.10 as stipulated in Ann.A/1 is not applicable to the case of the applicant as he is not underage/overage as per the proof submitted by him about his age. Further challenged on the ground that as per the information furnished by the applicant in the Personal Data Sheet (Ann.A/5) he has mentioned the date as 29.04.24 inadvertently as in spite of date of birth he has indicated age of 29 years 4 months and 24 days. Therefore, a bona-fide mistake is committed and this Court at the time of issuing notices and granting interim relief has considered the Secondary School Examination Certificate wherein date of birth of the applicant has been mentioned as 2nd March, 983 but the respondents have rejected candidature of the applicant on the ground of Under-aged/Over-aged candidates/without proof of age certificate.
3. Having prima-facie satisfied, the Tribunal granted interim relief and the impugned order Ann.A/1 was stayed and respondents were directed to keep one post of Group-D vacant till the next date of hearing.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied upon the judgment dated 20.8.2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in the case of Sudhangshu Sekar Biswas and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported at 2010 (1) (CAT) 237 wherein the Calcutta Bench was of the view that action on the part of the respondents in rejecting/canceling the candidature of the applicants abruptly without application of mind is not in true spirit of selection and the respondents have miserably failed in giving proper and cogent reason for such rejection. The reasons for cancellation of the candidates are silly and whimsical and considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the respondents should not indulge in such rejection which will open pandoras box.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Personal Data Sheet which has been filled by the applicant has been scrutinized as per the terms and conditions of the notification. The Personal Data of the applicant was scrutinized as per the instruction and it is not disputed that the applicant has not correctly mentioned date of birth in the Personal Data Sheet as he has filled the date of birth as 29.04.24 and in view of this fact the candidature is rejected as per clause 10 considering his date of birth as 29.04.24. It is further stated that at the time of scrutiny of Personal Data Sheet it revealed that date of birth which has been filled by the applicant is contrary to the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Certificate. Thus considering the date of birth mentioned in the Personal Data Sheet as 29.04.24 which did not confirm to the date of birth entered in the certificate of the Secondary School Certificate, therefore, the application form was rightly rejected.
6. Moreover, the applicant under para 6 of the application form made a specific declaration to the effect that all the facts and details furnished in the application form in response to detailed notification were absolutely true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and if any fact/and/or detail furnished was found wrong or if there was any deficiency in the application form, his candidature would be liable for summary rejection without any information. The respondents have adopted a uniform criteria and applied the same while putting all the application forms of the intending candidates to scrutiny as per terms and conditions of detailed Notification dated 28.07.2007 wherein it was specifically stipulated that the applications found with discrepancy will be liable for summary rejection and considering the fact that the applicant in the Personal Data Sheet has disclosed his date of birth as 29.04.24 and in the certificate of Board of Secondary Education annexed alongwith the application form shows the date of birth of the applicant as 02.03.1983, this being the discrepancy as is apparent on the face of record and keeping in view the criteria and procedure prescribed and consequences of the non-compliance of the procedure prescribed which were spelled out in the Notification dated 28.7.2007 has resulted in summary rejection of the application form of the applicant.
7. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and ors. reported in AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court considering the fact that application dispatched in time but received by the Coordinator after time fixed for receipt of such application held that rejection of such application is not illegal. He also placed reliance on the judgment dated 23rd May, 2011 rendered by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.411/2008 wherein the application has been rejected after allowing him to appear in the written examination conducted by the respondents on the ground that thumb impression of the applicant is not clear in the application form and the date of filling the application form has not been mentioned. This Tribunal having considered the condition No.3 of Ann.A/1 for rejecting the application and condition No.15 of the notification Ann.R/2 and clause 8.12 of the notification dated 28.7.2007 of the Railway Recruitment Cell which deals with Invalid Applications clause (iii) of which speaks about unsigned/undated applications/applications without clear and un-smudged thump impression and/or without marks of identification, observed that the application has rightly been rejected.
8. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the grounds stipulated in Ann.A/1 and examining the Personal Data Sheet Ann.A/5, admittedly, in the Personal Data Sheet the date of birth is shown as 29.04.24 whereas in the Secondary School certificate the date of birth of the applicant is shown as 2nd March, 1983 and vide Ann.A/1 it is intimated that on the detailed scrutiny carried out after the written examination, application for the above post has been rejected for the reason mentioned in ground No.10.
9. In the present case instructions were issued by the respondents that Personal Data Sheet was required to be filled strictly in accordance with the instructions and admittedly, the applicant has not filled the Personal Date Sheet as per the instructions and under the head date of birth he has mentioned year, month and date inspite of mentioning the date of birth. It is not disputed that in the Secondary Examination Certificate the date of birth of the applicant is Second March Nineteen Eighty Three and it is also admitted fact that the applicant cannot be said to be born in the year 2024 which has been wrongly mentioned by the applicant in the Personal Data Sheet. Thus, candidature of the applicant has been rejected on the ground mentioned at item No.10 of the letter issued in May, 2008 i.e. Under-aged/Over-aged candidates/without proof of age certificate and proof of age is admittedly submitted by the applicant and as per proof of age the applicant is within age limit. The mistake which has been committed by the applicant is that he has filled the age wrongly in the Personal Data Sheet for which the candidature of the applicant has been rejected under clause 10.
10. As discussed hereinabove, at the time of issuing notice, this Tribunal deemed it proper to direct the respondents to keep one post of Group-D vacant and the said post is still lying vacant. It is not disputed by the respondents that the applicant has been declared successful in the examination but due to the mistake committed by the applicant at the time of filling the Personal Data Sheet, his candidature has been rejected.
11. In the above circumstances, the respondents are expected to consider candidature of the applicant on the post of Group-D against the vacant post which was kept vacant as per the interim order issued by this Tribunal on 30.1.2009 if he is otherwise found suitable.
12. With these observations the OA stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
(ANIL KUMAR) (JUSTICE K.S.RATHORE) Admv. Member Judl. Member R/