Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
P Latha vs M/O Railways on 6 February, 2019
I OA No.7 12/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , MOUMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI O.A.No.210/00712 /2015 Dated this Wednesday the 6th day of February, 2019 Coram: Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A). Hon'ble Shri R. N. Singh, Member (J).
qt. Mrs. PB, Laths _ Age-40 years, Gccupation: Housewife, residing at G69 Sonynagar, Modi Hudeo, Dist-Solapur, Maharashtra~-413003., »» Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri A. Tamhane d.
© Versus L. Union of India through General Manager, Central Rallway Headquarters Office, CST, Mumbai-dacoo..
2. Central Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Office at 18 Floor, Chief Project Manager [Conversi fon}? s Office, P D'Mello road, Wadi Bunder, Mumbai-400 O16.
-«. Respondents { By Advocate Shri V. 8. Masurkar dy.
© . ORDER (OR AL) Per : R. ON. Singh, Member (Judicial) Present,
1. Shri A. Tamhane, learned counsel for the
2. Shri V. S. Masurkar, Learned counsel for
3. The applicant had challenged a letter dated 13.04.2015 by which the applicant had received a S if LEO ee ® | ® at ad Ley "et co
- is om ra ra Ee al md wei uy Mg ZL oy a is " nS S .
2 & Gk wy ta & ta 4 % $s By ty oy ?
genera bi = OS x * 4 : ° ; 5 a a G : < : é i % es Ong 4 m3 ¥ 3 : Ss os tnd qt CS % ten wed ry in Ay gi % % ty MY m a 4 " . C5 we A te ret nt oe ~ qe to "~ xt t vr ' BS G + ay q he: oN wt ° ot F ° oS z » @ m SS es co & 4 a S a a s bo ms 'C ° 4 : ' im "db s oe oe ' > - os wey 5 BS .t ty % SN we RG si on & OM DE os By Bo oO m yk fe oy be ry teen "Ct ng i Hd ogg m Bag & sd oo ty oe @ ind & to ie a iG 43 TS oy te re mw OR Bea m3 an po oS bod it re TG G £3, 62 . ki 2 pe aS OW ae ys st en bs send ee ry a tt 4 o e am & "4 to OP se t 408 ty SS Ls § ms fy x . 7% 435 © bp gy She aS oo + 5 don 3 co - m tty BO: ee aes Co on ty s AS om * Zee mS Ot) Dw O 4 ' ca 5 o mot Ch s kG q a SHUM Ga Oe SE BR Op ae 8 # } . Gort es os a ey SARS ROAR Yeh DO win Be ms ee od ie ke 4 a gy DBE PCr aa OU OO PO Or oe u as be. 6 ct al a & a "4 Sa os oat . " x : - ' ~ ah aw ae gy Rs oe re 4s oO Th oy tS 2 ao fe eS te te he te tes 43 ey a 4a055 fe A EL BD me, ce wd SQ) iS Sets YS my wh a) re B48 aay & os a hag 6% OO OO te 4 o ce tof @ ee Se ae : 3 H HOSS ke mo 43% By ot Rb oe ce ote ~ be AG xy me Gi og By wg Fh
- be of Me end Ohh ap rn a Foo a ~~ 2 os nt vt my te SO) SD "sy 4 TT et OS Lo o Eri S baa ft D ct Cy rap Ry fn , ae I oe ne gs ef 2 c :
a . 2 {TARE BM. Oy ey FH 4 at ae 4 :
# Cas & 4 ON 4 he ow s & ts Wh i wh Mm o« Gorge | be opt aH OD Wad sy a & Pe me, uO me A See a te Se ty iowa & m4 O & me Qo yw 5 Rone 4 mm roof ye ey Be bt WY Cy 6 a 3 tS we RY eg Sky zm S808 . t ion My ah? if wo Ay (i 4 riers % f 3 oie we % ry Rt ee hy Q "4 Arn, tO S re fH own tM an Bo Dea & Ay 3 hy : Gaga gS EsS3s 8 82% = mo Lb Phy 8 A ty he ; rm 2 1 im a 4 ry mY RM Be ty By % oy ni ee is , fo | " } ted a \ ah w , Util CO by Dp fw re) oy ue OANO.712/2015 got in thelexamination, written therer OFS s examination? jalsa nat b selectian ae "genera group.
Candidates? ithe Emoloyment fnfotmation No. Q1/2007.
3 How omany!¥ou have get §&9. 90% marks I haveimarks in the written if you are not satisfied with thi epiy, you ares hereby requested t iie an Appeal before the Appellat hority within 30 days from th ipt of this letter against tai in this reg of the Appellate Authority Addi. General Manage IF, Central Railway, Mumbai, C.8.F.460 002 Sdii-
'Onima Korda) information Copy toy Oo cf me oy < NaS OD S.0.S.A./S. KA. Mum. CSP.
The applicant have sought the fol "(G) ERIS Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai be Pleased to call for records and files pertaining te recruitment process conducted by Respondent in respect of Class 'D' posts of Central Railway, Mumba i and after perusal and examination thereor.
fig) this Honourable Pribunal DS pl j set aside tne letter dated dis. 04. 2015 issued by lowing HUA ECLTTLTLLEL LETT uy --~ wo baa wD a es -- fq cat om a he go § 2 4% ® BF 8 a ee & 5 fi 2 2 8 BN OH f 8 ss gd # m th 4 to ' : wat 4 ry " ry : . - " a 8) 2 Se *% iy = wp oD ¢ eg 8 3 Pe Bs y . mA ed fag Gums @ ood c i w a , 1S me ard 7 G a Cy wv i Oy om om om rt 40 © O " ~ a it cord ; ae i} a Oe a Y 44 ond y 44 ~ * 4 os = ches aes eAd UD Oey G2 cet wo wack ~ eed "sop 4 md 4 @ ae tf gS aA * ms sy 4 sl st os tt : oe bon a a} rl kd e é a Re os rt of %S io re Qe he, , . " * " "a ae a at 4 yo © . a 3 ci => Sh, s é 6 ey Sey - od wa ee) 7 sed OL O a Qi pb ; 6 "Ae tes wy HS Cs " Go eG ny @ & % teed * a eB as re * " 5 t te art a 5 ~ ¥ ad ts o o . Q ee me @ & 2 x @ g) ry © ~ 2, mm Ub ao _ no @ Cc wn ' ao GO ' 4 tai be - ryote 4a 1 ws e 3 = OB "4 M4 wR oa ard . 3} a A me 2 Ow re Pe 44 5 a wo! co @ 44 . |Z % i eee, "t * i vi "4 feet G zg : ° Six ret Bho ae s CO DP ow § @ @ 9 HB SF ff g me by Lhe ity BMG wed 0 wn *F th ed ey ' ved a 44 2 oe ag ke, Ly Be ct ef a Ci, ny z ft 4 a 3 cy tty a od @ my Q a a 23 , . a on ©. ce 4 ad ey per Al ¢ ' ' tt " od pnad A & wae poet * wm 3 S, oka eo mS, ce] bed a v4 om. res ud 7 . t+ hm wt oy rz ty £ ce A G 44 O wt i : is 2 Ms = 4% By we a 4 oy cs ' - fe : @ : 3 "on A ss fa my av 9 @ mo ® 4 ns : Ls 3 oe + 4 'ee " 5 ort "i af ful , ; , ae any S tes a a gt 2 Q 3 oi at el cS a me HOEY rs 43 4 #4 4 4 . ord " wn ih @ ub cs ve kg te eee | Oe a ct eg HO C 8B ¢ G & nh BEG 252 @ H _ D SG 8 £ OG me "og " OG Spool oe 43 Es " et mE ot a GS fs i 13 Ch nip tes Sa U3 Aad £3 & o pa A OU C wed G bs os m > fy a, v4 ne we a oe , ond 3 is O > u th a ; the te > ME ee i tf ae " & he of aad ope "3 tt 3 eS oy £3 i Cy. i = fa "oy 'donk sonst " af G 4 co a Le) £3 iy By @ a3 an ey mm gS moos & oD ¥ Wal ps 2B 2 i
a) et Deady 4 a ay e @ to ma o aaa) OS et ei wt ae wt hed "Es Ass et ,. iD need a fi ay ws ' > he "ed ' % a x La 5 sy ret Oe Dp y he ret cs tee i bay eH gS ee hot . OY, : rood rend A ii af to ot ved Fe Da sam st eed 3 het 4b IM Om as ty i rt aw ze bad a 465 oo at ch 3 os PA £m my 4 i @ aed ot ©. } " Gi iG Y r 3 o ody he vs By wD pa ey oa !2 at eg re % ond, ms By i itS nS ' Ana ng re w iB im x 4 " CB N, oS bd * ky ay et 3 ' ' vy 4 e "Ss G os wt naa 2 "of tH iy. ay w : nee ~ cj 6 3 ' : G © £6 am aS 43 . oh, es ; *y Gg fis a & a tt a Ad Sr LY oe i , oO 6 Y meg Wo gO : e ee ® SE be y © e 5 © RB gg 6 8 2B ow fe p wR 6 @ a sy am 5 =f cone hee os 2 g t) " w ct a i 3 , es ue tte an Fp] - w Po h coe gh, be "eh hud Oy & mt Ad & tv fed sr} Tj w rf e + . t = ts, " ie * ~ a3 ie be ' es wy ~ a Fea a) q Me 4 3 a @ 3 a ro E re = ci ud G gy i L f ey a he Ms al vi ny, . : he! " Gy ot fe iis3 . net Oo ¢ G eh C & ct i ny HA oO a fra & it j a od T8 - ; G : re ea "4a vet " w : ms oO a o Tt m > "4 Gi, 3 rf ay hd "oy oy ei BB a Gy fo ta + bo eis: ed o wet ie] 3 ef DB aa cra od 0 en Bet hs wy 4 mt rs of sus 7a ay ER @ ee
- 3 & 8 G & 6 6 4 5 @ EF & Roors Ba ' S pet i f g ss a3 3 4 tf wy fh © oh ron oa a GO te rear y 3 " < 3 @ sich Oo OA No.F12/2015 ected. The learned counsel her candidature was re for the applicant submits that the applicant found place in the merit list panel of meritorious candidates of OBC. Hawever, she did not come in the "
merit panel prepared for the General Category candidates . The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact the applicant was considered against the vacancies made for General Category Candidates im the facts and circumstances that the applicant has neither annexed a copy of requisite * 3 DB nm rt we rh Re pcate Lor. belonging the OBC mon-creamy Layer and the applicant has also given tick mark-on both the categeries of General as well as ORC category.
On verification of documents in support of application annexed in consenance given with the ~ gy reply in notification, the reapondents were required to consider the applicant only against the General Category candidate ws. However, the applicant does not come in'the merit of Ganeral Category candidates.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant in the rejoinder submits that the aoplicant while filing up the form has given tick mark only against the OBC Category and not against the reneral Unreserved Category and the applicant is not aware ag to who has given the tick mark against the Unreserved Communit "y in the application filed oy the Pa a a"
& GA No. 7I2/2018 oo fan tr hod.
om ww Ch ret pad cr cfr hi o, CF a {S to G eH ct a @ my.
applicant as she has not annexed the requisite certificate required in term of the aforesaid netification about her being an OBC categery candidate, The respondents have filed reply and said on oe is made by the spplicant only and there are no apecific pleadings or arguments on behalf of the applicant that her tick mark against the Unreserved Category has been made by the authorities of the a. We have perused the original records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
x 'led that im Col.il4, tick mark has } 4 th a and we are satis heen given agginst both the categories (Unreserved as. well as O8C). The earned counsel for the applicant SUDMLES that in pursuance to the notice dated 27.02.2012, the applicant hes produced OBC cate before the respondents. However, it is et fe "
certit w G3 CF a st my the respondents that praduction of such eertifiecate is out of context in the case of the applicant in @s much as this notification was rot Sey ee et ns eT ey es oe wv aed ~ : ey : ay ey meantk For these Candidates who applied as a ce, rh Unreserved candidates and at a later stage awe ary a - ws Yate ", ere tees 4 de {xX recruifiment claimed to be belonging to &sc/SP/oRnc the tick mark © Gy 7 OANO. 7112/2018 candidates.
10. The bearmned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has s ed 89.00 marks in R o Ce rs the written examination and ont off marks fo unreserved category candidate was 100.335 and hence the applicant was mot placed-in the panel of successful candidates belonging to Unreserved Category. With regard to the applicant belonging to OBC category it is stated on behalf of the wy respondents that the applicant has not annexed the requisite documents with the application for claiming candidature as belonging to ORC and thus she has not complied with the instructiana given in the notification which was clearly stated in column x no.i4 of the notification. tt was re candidate to enclose OBC/NCL Certificate along with -
the application and it is admitted case of the applicant that while applying for the post she has.
rh not enclosed any certificate about her belonging to OBC/NCI, category. The earned counsel for the respondents Shri V. S. Masurkar argues that once the ap "3 licant has participated in the selection process Gh.
D 4 Gi ee fi UE a ce) ob ich oO ce 23 oh UA Unreserved Cahegery and she place in the merit list of unreserved category there ig no iilegality in the action of the respondents by not putting her name in the successful candidates in a © " re 33 w . wD wm @ al ar @ G m3 @ oO uy io o ol wy a ; o ms as Bo KB a £> oo 4 a m5 c sé Q wt ie v ' ee cna ay co 44 Me * et hs o cn my ~ a tan as a ws @ 3) os boat 2 fe wee wd 4 ee oa = a3 rs) %% ea os ad eet om $3 th cd 5 ae ORS he w OQ m G aa = a os a3 OQ vd ty o . tt bed eet 4 wee ry nt 4 ed 4 ep aed o rn ee o ce B ek pO eS a Os ae & a4 "rt - Oy ao mG be O 6 ey tt vy 4 roy . "6 ae Pa - uy eB is G Mi o iS SG 4 1 & < » 8 G@ «@ BB go KF ww» & BG & Gu 8 @ la u 2 S ay Se os ok S4 cot ty oh Go . SF) ve i ee Sef he @ rah c ot eS ee) tnd ms +H WD 3 o _ ny M3 } 3 3 9 ty SS mt ~ $3 " ad Be: onl Ot w 'a 7A { i rie Lens ri 1) ne 5 ie, - 4 bs gy 5 @ us = a4 " oO ry g ou 5 £2 &§ & 2 2 6 BF Ss 8 & 8 & 0 pa 6 ia o * rhea 6 so An . oy ply ONE AS ef fa Es : = in i 4 t oH at 5 ° es
4 5 ot oS de ae $1 oY * "md et fe. rye LS es a m x BO o ty " te ont ee ee ao O co co Z ve oot 'a 43 gC we Spee AG So o sa mY 43 aa 3 oieg son ed ook a wt "e " & deb eck be @ " a bet * co is iS * ' i '5 " & e ied 69) re ~ iB + : 2 Aa c be ca " ie Bg 4 oO. cp O48 Om cs " hel fia} , ca s wh ba Q ot iO c G 6 i 3 vet 5 ho ae ao we om ef 3 co i a 39] a) Qe A 2 oo ord rh oO a net oe " Ab ha S ee re a a fo 4 i no % "od rs mt cd ad ' ie eed . apt mo oa 4 my + mt 4 Gy OG mF 2» 8 5 og © © & ¢ we wm & ce oo = a c 4 ra "2 a sA vA y ; hee rs) it bei m4 2 nm & Mt @ © a S 4 ae ct a o te ' rd 4 ne i £3 rs Oo ey 4 ¢ 4 oy eet oi 42 Ne ey a o id 4 "| e WF vet rh » " a " oO a me a os o G @ re S ' B® 2 & BO BS mS woo 8 ce os mom wv. ct 4 Me net 2 a wed a mn no WY C5 s ig if ¢ i ' mg @ o ed i ° a mA gs Ge sO = 3 IB w ¥ Me my b Ty, OG
- UR ped 2 o eo 8 ~ @ @ ee ky ry Y os or ie 3 mt ea a a tg Me L B a a oe rol wy 8S ha pod uA aaa Qt ul "EA ' re cs a et ~ rn wt a3 Ch G 4 @ MS ~ hy " 3 id a SG ss G v4 Ls "4 @ "pd be ms ed 4 2 i 2 m4 t bes *. . . ; 4 - + e 8 S x rn a fe is ze a e <i co "3 f a a sh i & ee iss Sh » ona op So ea a ies 13 tR chet dot "ss vie ae "4 os ' ah pa ry Cy @ wt im eo nt O b a Ch, rd 4d & o i ee :
a bt ro ~ 4 ee ma 3 A ; oj a i o w hy . wm se a) pac) Me sted she aed a ® ~ wet - gn, tt ms wn - ny i Q hel od ~ 4 oh " * 4 , t ry oe % wed wD y a. RB 8 Su Mg sw aT Gg i ch a nea a4 ma vo 3 ao td - w o % B % ©
5 & 8 BG Bo Rm fe i ef Soom 8 < ro ed , Hoe wo cf aot ca . ot 4 age wet wet r B ° j @ we o S & a GG gh ~ > red chy Th q » ie 2 . ne or rot b. " Py y i ih @ mt or hed Sf A 0 6 € § €8-B @ © € &€ 48 8 © BF EB w 44 et Het at its) 4d to % As t i "
© 9 OAND. FED 2015 espondent no.i for appointment, sitting in appeal over the scrutiny of appiicatian by referring ta 2 certain certificate of length Ff service. High Court 226 of the constit not campetent to SCPUEINEES the applications filed &f and cannot substiti opinion based on some ev come to a conclusion whether the.
application form is defective. in view of the reasons recorded above, we have na other option But to set aside the impugned judgment dated 28° May, 2014 passed by High Court of Judicature far ajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in t bition No. l3032 of The appeal is allowed no
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court we find no merit in the OA.
14. in the facts and circumet ances, the OA is s to costes.
= dismissed. No order .
(R. W. Bingh) | (Dr. Bhagwan Sahai) Member (J) Member (A) 7 Woe