Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Sanjay Kumar Soni vs Union Of India Through on 25 January, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH
OA No.174/2013 Pronounced on : 25.1.2017
(Reserved on: 19.1.2017)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. PRAVEEN MAHAJAN, MEMBER (A)
Sanjay Kumar Soni
S/o Shri Shankar Lal Soni,
Aged 25 years,
By Caste Soni,
Resident of Village & Post Bari Khatu, Tehsil Jayal,
District Nagaur (Raj).
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE : Mr. Manot Purohit
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
General Manager,
North Western Railway,
NWR Headquarter,
Jawahar Circle,
Jaipur.
2. Deputy General Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Railway Recruitment Cell, Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Ms. Anjana Jawa.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The present O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for issuance of a direction to the respondents to declare him eligible for the post of Group D and appoint him in pursuance of Notification No. 2/2010/RRC/NWR dated 16.12.2010 with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. lesser meritorious candidates is given appointment in the category of applicant, if the applicant is otherwise found eligible.
2. The facts, which led to filing of the present O.A, are that the applicant is a physically disable to the extent of 90% vision disability. The respondents invited applications for appointment to Group D posts vide Notification No. 02/2010/RRC/NWR dated 16.12.2010. The applicant was also one of the candidates. He was issued admission card for appearing in the examination and was successful as per result declared on 21.8.2012. He was called for verification of documents and was declared unfit for appointment on the ground that his signature did not tally with the signatures appended by him subsequently. The applicant was also provided an Assistant named Amir Khan Kabja for writing the examination during the selection process. The applicant submitted an application under RTI Act, 2005 in response to which he was informed vide letter dated 8.1.2013 as conveyed vide covering letter dated 10.1.2013 and 27.2.2013 that his hand writing, signature and thumbs impression did not match and as such he was declared ineligible for appointment. Hence the O.A.
3. The O.A. is resisted by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. It is submitted that since the hand writing, signature and thumb impression did not match and as such the applicant was rightly declared as ineligible for appointment. The question of jurisdiction of this Tribunal over a selection which took place at Jaipur has also been raised.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties with their consent at length and perused the material on the file. So, we are not touching upon the jurisdiction point in this case.
5. The applicant knew it very well as to on what ground he was not offered appointment as he had invited information under RTI Act, 2005 to that effect and the position was also made clear in reply that he was treated as ineligible due to mismatch of his hand writing, signature and thumb impression. However, the applicant has not chosen to file any rejoinder to rebut the submissions made by the respondents in the reply. In any case, even if one goes with the applicant for the sake of argument only on the ground that vision disability played havoc with his life, the mismatch of thumb impression is one thing which cannot be ignored by a court of law. In such a situation one cannot find any fault with the action of the respondents in declaring him ineligible for the post more so the selection had not yet materialized as checking and examination of documents was also a part of the selection process and unless one is issued appointment order, it cannot be said that the selection and appointment is complete. The Courts have gone to the extent of holding that even empanelment does not create any right in a candidate to seek appointment and as such one cannot find any fault with the action of the respondents.
6. In the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh Vs. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 796, the Honble Apex Court held that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the case of Sanjoy Bhattacharjee and Union of India & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 283, the Honble Apex Court has held that merely because the petitioner had been put in the waiting list, he did not have any vested right to appointment. In the case of Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 381, the Honble Apex Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can only be invoked by someone who had dealings or transactions or negotiations or a legal relationship with the authority concerned. None other can invoke the said doctrine merely on the ground of a general obligation of the authority to act fairly. Honble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar & Ors. and State of Haryana & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 161 has held that bona fide decision taken by the authorities not to give appointment does not deserve to be ordinarily interfered with since selected candidates cannot have any enforceable right to appointment. Court can only interfere when there is lack of bona fide or there is arbitrariness. It is thus more than clear that a candidate, by virtue of his being placed in the select list, does not have any indefeasible right to appointment. There may be circumstances compelling the authorities not to proceed with the appointment of a selected candidate at all or not to proceed further. Though it is equally true that the authorities too are not allowed to exercise their power in an arbitrary manner. A candidate, so selected, cannot be by-passed or ignored in absence of any bona fide reason.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is dismissed being devoid of any merit leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAVEEN MAHAJAN) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 25.1.2017
Place: Jodhpur
HC*
1
OA No. 174/Jodhpur/2013
(Sanjay Kumar Soni Vs. UOI & Ors.)