Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Bimbadhar Behera vs M/O Railways on 6 February, 2019
O.A.No.260/00698/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No.260/00698/2013
Cuttack this the 6th day of February, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.GOKUL CHANDRA PATI, MEMBER(A)
HON'BLE MR.SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER(J)
Bimbadhar Behera, aged about ... years, S/o. Brajabandhu Behera, permanent
resident of Vill/PO-Semor, PS/Dist-Khurda, Odisha.
...Applicant
By the Advocate(s)-M/s.N.R.Routray
Smt.J.Pradhan
T.K.Choudhury
S.K.Mohanty
-VERSUS-
Union of India represented through:
1. The General Manager, East Coast Raiwlays, E.Co.R.Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Rail Vihar, B.D.A. Rental Colony,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-651 023, Dist-Khurda.
3. Asst.Secretary, Recruitment Boad, Rail Vihar, B.D.A.Rental Colony,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751 023, Dist-Khurda.
...Respondents
By the Advocate(s)-Mr.S.K.Ojha
ORDER
PER SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBERA(J):
In this Original Application under Section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
i) To quash the order of rejection dated 6.6.2008 (Annexure-
A/6).
ii) And to direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant as Assistant Loco Pilot.
2. The short facts leading to filing of this O.A. are that in pursuance of an Employment Notice dated 17.03.2007 issued by the respondent-railways, applicant had made an application for recruitment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Accordingly, he was called for the written test followed by aptitude 1 O.A.No.260/00698/2013 test in which he came out successful. While expecting to receive the offer of appointment, he received a letter dated 06.06.2008 (A/6) in which it was intimated as under:
Sub: Cancellation of your candidature:
After document verification, your candidature has been cancelled on the ground mentioned below:
"You had undergone the course on Skill Development Programme in Fitter, which is not the prescribed technical qualification for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot".
3. Hence, this application with the prayer as mentioned above.
4. Opposing the prayer of the applicant, the respondents have filed a detailed counter. According to Respondents, as per Employment Notice, the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot was - Matriculation or its equivalent + ITI or Course Completed Act Apprentice in any of the following trades:
(a) Fitter
(b) Electrician
(c) Instrument Mechanic
(d) Mill Wright Maintenance Mechanics
(d) Mechanic Radio & T.V.
(f) Electronics Mechanic
(g) Mechanic Motor Vehicle
(h) Wireman
(i) Tractor Mechanic
(j) Armature & Coil Winder
(k) Mechanic Diesel
(l) Heat Engine
(m) Turner
(n) Machinist
(o) Refrigeration & AC Mechanic or Diploma in Mech/Electrical/Electronics/Audio Mobile Engg. in lieu of ITI.
5. It has been submitted by the respondents that at the stage of verification of documents, it was found that the applicant had undergone a course on Skill Development Programme in Fitter which is not the technical 2 O.A.No.260/00698/2013 qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot as per the notification vide A/1. They have, therefore, submitted that the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Jayakumar vs.A.Gopu & Anr. [(20090 (1) AISLJ (SC)293] in which it has been held that the selection authority has the right to find out if a candidate has been called by mistake and the court can interfere if rejection is for wrong reasons. In the fitness of things, the relevant portion of the judgement is quoted hereinbelow:
"We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in application form that renders the candidates ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light. It is surely open to the Tribunal to examine whether the reason assigned by the selection authority for holding a candidate ineligible for selection was valid or unreasonable and arbitrary. If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the Tribunal cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process by being called for interview. The principle of estoppels has no application in such a case"
7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not the case of the applicant that he has the required qualification as prescribed in the Employment Notice for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. In view of this, we hold that the reason assigned by the respondents in cancelling the 3 O.A.No.260/00698/2013 candidature of the applicant is valid, just and reasonable and therefore, the interference of the Tribunal in this matter is uncalled for.
8. For the reasons stated above, the O.A. he held to be without any merit and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (GOKUL CHANDRA PATI)
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(A)
BKS
4