Allahabad High Court
Jhumjhum Chatterjee vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95265-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5996 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jhumjhum Chatterjee Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vijay Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 12.08.2016 and a direction to the respondents to permit her to join on Group-D post in Hearing Handicapped (HH) Category with all consequential benefits has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner, a physically challenged candidate having 100% disability with regard to hearing, applied pursuant to advertisement dated 19.08.2006 for recruitment in Group-D category post reserved for physically handicapped persons in East Central Railway. She applied in the prescribed format for Group-D post under HH Category, addressing the same to the Divisional Railway Manager, Mughalsarai, District - Chandauli. Written examination was held on 04.02.2007, only seven candidates qualified in the written examination against seven sanctioned post of Group-D and she topped the list securing highest marks. She was called for screening test on 23.03.2007, a final list was issued on 31.03.2007. However, her name was missing and out of seven sanctioned post qua PH Category (HH) only six were filled up.
3. After passage of over one year, vide communication dated 05.04.2008, the petitioner was informed that she was inadvertently called for written examination, although she was not eligible as (i) the last date for receipt of the application was 13.11.2006 whereas the applicant submitted her application on 20.12.2006 and (ii) the application form submitted by the applicant was incomplete and in a different format, which aspects were detected during the screening by the Committee Members.
4. The petitioner represented to the respondents. However, when no action was taken she approached the Chief Commissioner of Person with Disabilities (CCPD) with a prayer to direct the respondents to provide appointment to her. The respondents appeared before the CCPD and took the same plea as indicated regarding deficiencies being found during screening. The CCPD passed an order dated 08.07.2016 directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner.
5. Pursuant to the order passed by the CCPD dated 08/14.07.2016, the respondents passed the order dated 12.8.2016, coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the case for further consideration for appointment of the petitioner on Group-D post under PH quota. Aggrieved of the order dated 12.8.2016, the present Original Application was filed.
6. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents inter-alia indicating that against seven vacancies, 958 candidates appeared for written test in which 31 candidates passed in the required written test for Group-D and the result was published on 23.02.2007. The petitioner was wrongly called for the written examination as she was not eligible and therefore, the Screening Committee rightly rejected her candidature.
7. The petitioner filed rejoinder inter-alia disputing having filed the application on 20.12.2006 and the reasons given by the respondents for rejection of her candidature. She disputed that the date indicated in the application form was in her handwriting and required the respondents to comply with the directions of the CCPD.
8. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that even if it is presumed that the date in the application form was not filled in her own handwriting but as the application form was not found in the format of notification, many required informations were missing i.e. the type of disability, percentage of disability etc. and consequently, dismissed the Original Application.
9. During the pendency of the petition, by order dated 22.04.2024, the petitioner as well as the respondents were directed to produce the disability certificate of the petitioner, which was annexed to the application form at the time of making application, pursuant to which, both the sides have produced the said certificate.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application. He made submissions that the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is wholly unjust. Submission has been made that the advertisement dated 19.08.2006 was issued by the East Central Railway for recruitment against physically handicapped person quota wherein for Mughalsarai Division, seven posts for HH (Hearing Handicapped) category in Group-D were advertised. It is submitted that the advertisement provided that the application should be sent to the concerned Division of East Central Railway on or before 18.09.2006 by ordinary post or to be dropped in the box provided for the purpose in the offices of Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur/ Dhanbad/Mughalsarai/Sonpur/Samastipur Division on or before the last date. The last date was extended to 13.11.2006. It is submitted that the respondents have not produced any material to indicate that the application filed by the petitioner was received after 13.11.2006 i.e. after the last date inasmuch as in case the same was sent by post after the last date, envelope would be available and it is not the case of the respondents that even after the last date, the drop boxes at the office of the concerned Divisional Railway Manager were available till 20.12.2006. The petitioner specifically denied having indicated the date 20.12.2006 in the application form and therefore, rejection of her candidature based on the fact that the application was filed after the last date is factually incorrect. Qua the other ground pertained to application having not filed in the requisite format wherein the nature of disability and percentage of disability were not indicated, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had admittedly annexed her medical certificate, wherein her nature of disability i.e. deafness in both ears at 100% was clearly indicated and therefore, pedantic requirement emphasized by the respondents that also in a case of a physically challenged candidate, who had obtained highest marks in the written examination, is wholly unjust and that the orders impugned deserve to be set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It has been submitted that the application form filed by the petitioner bears 20.12.2006 as the date, which was wrongly included in the list of eligible candidates for written examination, which aspect was disclosed during the course of screening and therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected. The person concerned, who had included the form of the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally. Further submission has been made that even the application, was admittedly in a different format from what was provided in the advertisement itself and on that count also, the respondents were justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
12. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
13. The facts are not in dispute so far as the petitioner's applying the post pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.08.2006 meant for physically handicapped person quota for Group-D post in HH category is concerned, wherein she was called for written examination apparently finding her eligible for the said written examination. The petitioner was first in merit of the list of candidates, who was called for documents verification. Apparently, the Screening Committee, which was meant only for verification of the documents pertaining to eligibility i.e. educational qualifications, age and certificate pertaining to physical disability, went a step further and examined the application form of the petitioner and based on the grounds that the application was filled by her on 20.12.2006 i.e. after the last date of receipt of the application, which was 13.11.2006 and the application was not in the format as indicated in the advertisement, rejected her candidature, which aspect was communicated to her for the first time on 05.04.2008 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition).
14. The petitioner since her first representation made to various authorities including the CCPD, clearly denied having made the application on 20.12.2006 i.e. after the last date and had indicated that the nature and percentage of her disability are reflected from the certificate enclosed with the application and rejection of her candidature was not just. The CCPD vide its order dated 8/14.07.2016 (Annexure - 13), required the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Group-D post. However, the respondents did not follow the said directives, which led to filing of the Original Application.
15. The stipulation made in the advertisement regarding making of application inter-alia reads as under :
"2. How to Apply : Typed/Neatly Handwritten application in English/Hindi foolscape paper as per Format with a recent passport size photograph pasted thereon bearing full signature of the candidate across the same with date should be sent to the concerned Division as explained above. The application should be sent to concerned division of East Central Railway, Hajipur on or before 18.09.2006 by ordinary post or to be dropped in the box provided for the purpose in the Offices of Divisional Railway Manager (P), East Central Railway, Danapur/ Dhanbad/ Mughalsarai/ Sonpur/Samastipur Division on or before 06.00 PM of 18.09.2006 except on Sunday and Office Holidays."
(The last date was extended to 13.11.2006)
16. A perusal of the above would reveal that the same provided for two modes for making application; (i) by sending the same to concerned Division of East Central Railway, Hajipur by ordinary post or (ii) to be dropped in the box provided for the purpose in the Offices of Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway of various Divisions, including Mughalsarai.
17. The respondents except for referring to the date mentioned in the application form i.e. 20.12.2006, have not produced any material in support of the plea that the application was filed beyond the last date of application as the petitioner has repeatedly denied having filled up the said date in the application form. The fact that the application could either be sent by ordinary post or dropped in the box provided at the Division, the respondents could have produced the envelope containing the application bearing the stamp of the Post Office in case the same was sent by post. It is not the case of the respondents that the drop boxes were available for dropping the applications at various Divisions even till 20.12.2006, though the extended last date has expired on 13.11.2006.
18. In those circumstances, and in view of clear repeated denial by the petitioner pertaining to the date indicated in the application form, the reasons indicated by the respondents, cannot be countenanced regarding the petitioner having applied after the last date. Even it goes against normal prudence that in case a candidate would apply after the last date, would then indicate a date beyond the last date of receiving the application.
19. The second aspect, which has formed the basis for rejection, pertains to the application not being in format, as indicated in the advertisement, and the deficiency in the application filed by the petitioner, which has been pointed out, pertains to the fact that she has not indicated her type of disability and percentage of disability in the application form.
20. The said plea raised is apparently hyper-technical inasmuch as the application was received in hardcopy and not online, wherein on account of a particular column being left blank, the candidature can be rejected. The disability certificate of the petitioner was annexed with the application, wherein her disability has been clearly reflected as 100% deafness in both ears and therefore, the requirement of nature and percentage of disability being available to the respondents, the candidature on the said count also could not have been rejected.
21. The fact that the respondents were well aware of nature of petitioner's disability is fortified from the result of the written test dated 23.02.2007 , (Annexure-6), wherein the petitioner had topped Group-D Hearing Handicapped Candidates. Once the application was rightly considered for hearing handicapped category, there was no reason than for the Screening Committee to indicate that for lack of indications in the application form though clearly indicated in the certificate annexed with the application form, the said application was liable to be rejected.
22. In those circumstances, both the reasons indicated by the respondents for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
23. It must be emphasized that the respondents, while dealing with candidates belonging to specially abled category, must not be triggered happy in rejecting their candidatures on hyper-technical and baseless grounds so as to deprive them of the limited job opportunities, which are made available to them. The petitioner stood first in merit based on the written examination conducted by the respondents and for seven posts, only seven candidates cleared the exam and after rejecting the petitioner's candidature, only six candidates were accorded appointment and one post pursuant to the advertisement, remained vacant.
24. The Tribunal, in its determination, though accepted the plea that the date in the application form after the last date of application was not filled by her, however, only on account of the fact that the application form was not in format, rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner, without reference to the fact that her certificate indicating nature and percentage of disability was very much annexed to the said application, based on which she was very much eligible for the post in PH (HH) category and therefore, the determination made by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
25. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.8.2016 passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai rejecting the candidature of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the CCPD and order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 296 of 2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on Group-D post pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.08.2006 in HH Category, if she is otherwise eligible. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits by taking her merit as No. (1) in the result declared on 23.3.2007 of the written examination. However, she would be entitled to monetary benefits from the date of actual appointment.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024
nd
(Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)