Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saurabh Rathi vs M/O Railways on 16 January, 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No.3783 of 2017
This the 16th day of January, 2019
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)
Saurabh Rathi
S/o Rajbir Singh Rathi
Aged about 23 years
R/o H.No.531/16,
Paanch Bishwa Jatwara Mohalla,
Lambi Gali, Bahadurgarh,
Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana, Pin 12450
Presently at RZH-851, Raj Ngr-II,
Palam, New Delhi-77,
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Ranjit Singh)
VERSUS
1. UOI
Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
At Baroda House, New Delhi-1.
2. Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Northern Railway,
Lajpat Ngr-I, New Delhi-24.
.....Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri S.M. Arif)
ORDER (Oral)
Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) direct the respondents to evaluate the applicant's answer sheet and issue appointment order along 2 with all consequential benefits if marks obtained by him are within the zone of selection in pursuance of Employment Notice No.220-E, RRC/2013.
3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the OA are that applicant applied for the post of Trackman/points Man/Gate Man Khalasi/Helper/Cleaner under the Northern Railway in pursuance of Employment Notice No.220-E/RRC/2013. The selection test was conducted on 23.11.2014 and the results were declared sometime in March, 2015 and appointment of the selected candidates has been given till the end of the year 2016. However, the result of the applicant was not declared. The applicant submitted his application under RTI Act which was replied by the respondents vide reply dated 28.5.2015 that the applicant had circumvented notification instructions contained in para-6 of the ORM sheet. The applicant had asked for supply of the answer sheet as well but the same was not supplied. The applicant filed appeal and then second appeal on 21.8.2015 and the same was replied vide letter dated 22.2.2017.
3.1 Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents on the grievance of the applicant, he filed this OA seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
4. Pursuance to notice issued to the respondents, they filed their reply in which they stated that in pursuance of 3 notification No.220E/Open Market/RRC/2013, a recruitment process to fill up 5679 vacancies in Pay Band-I Rs.5200- 20200 + GP Rs. 1800/- Group 'D' post was initiated. In the said notification detailed information for the candidates was given. Notification clearly stipulates how to apply, general conditions, invalid applications and mode of selection etc. In response to the notification, around 20 lac applications were received. After initial scrutiny, approx. 15 lac candidates were called provisionally for written examination subject to final verification. Out of this, around 5 lac candidates appeared in the written examination held in five phases in the month of November-December, 2014. Result of the said written examination was declared in April 2015 through RRC/NR website & prominent news papers. Before the written examination detail instructions with ORM sheet given to all the candidates with example on how to fill the ORM sheet. Copy of the instructions provide to all the candidates (Annexure R1) stating that failure to adhere to instructions will render answer sheet invalid and it will not be evaluated. It is clearly mentioned that candidate to darken the circules corresponding to your community. Centre Code, Control No., Roll No., and question Booklet No. against Box No.11, 13, 14, 15 and 16. After the written examination, the whole process of result preparation was done on a computer based software. After necessary invalidation of the cases where identity could 4 not be validated/established from filled OMR with data base, result of the written examination published. The whole process of result preparation was done through a automotive software driven program on the scanned ORMs.
4.1 The applicant, herein, Roll No.40010593, Control No.11203260 appeared in the written examination but did not fill the question booklet control No. in the prescribed column correctly and admittedly not darkened the corresponding bubble on ORM sheet under Booklet No.4006800 in column No.16 and accordingly not shortlisted for further process of selection being rejected for violation of examination instructions. For this omission/commission, the software developed for the evaluation could not accept/identify the data of ORM with reference to answer keys to be applied to particular Booklet No. as programme read darken bubbles instead of text on the ORM sheet.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant correctly complied with the requirement of paras of instructions including para '6' and non-evaluation of his answer sheet is wrong. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that evaluation of answersheet of the candidates who appeared in pursuance to the advertisement aforesaid has to be done on a computer based software as lakhs of 5 candidates have appeared and all the candidates were provided the instructions to be followed while filling up the answer sheet and from the perusal of the answer booklet of the applicant, which is at page 13-A of the OA, it is evidently clear that the applicant although mentioned his question Boolket No.4006800 in the same but has not bubbled the same in the requisite places. As such this fact evidently proved that applicant did not fill the OMR sheet i.e. Question Booklet No. properly leading to its rejection as invalid OMR. Accordingly, the name of the applicant appears as 'not shortlisted' on RRC website. He further emphasized that it was clearly mentioned in the OMR sheet itself that candidate fill the data as per given instructions failing which the result evaluating computer software would not read it and the candidate's name would not appear in the processed result. He further contended that applicant failed to darken the corresponding bubbles against the Question Booklet Column No.16 and accordingly, his candidature was not considered further.
6. After having heard the averments of learned counsel for the parties and also having regard to the pleadings available on record, this Court accepts the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents, as we have also seen the annexure A-5 at page 13A of the paper book and also found that applicant did not fill the corresponding bubbles against 6 the Question Booklet Column number as provided in Column No.16 of the OMR sheet and we also found that in the instructions provided to all the candidates in para 7, it has been specifically mentioned that 'Darken the circles corresponding to your community, Centre Code, Control No., Roll number & Question Booklet number against Box No.11,13,14,15 & 16 very carefully'. As such this Court is also of the considered view that OMR sheet has not been filled/bubbled by the applicant properly, so far as Box No.16 of his ORM sheet is concerned and the same relates to mentioning of Question Booklet No., which was provided to the applicant to give his answer in OMR sheet. It is further relevant to mention that OMR sheets of the candidates have to be evaluated on a computer based software and when the bubbles with regard to question booklet no. were not filled in by the applicant, the ORM sheet of the applicant was declared as invalid.
7. It is trite law that Courts/Tribunals are not invested with the power, authority and jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decisions taken by the departmental authorities. Courts/Tribunals, in exercise of power of judicial review, can only examine whether the decision taken by the departmental authorities is vitiated on account of any legal flaw in the decision making process warranting their interference. Courts/Tribunals can interfere with the decision of the 7 departmental authorities, if it is found that the authorities have failed to take all relevant factors into consideration, or have taken irrelevant factors into consideration while making the decision, and that the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authorities is perverse, or irrational, or in contravention of any rules. Admittedly, in the instant case, the candidature of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the employment notice, and his answer sheet has not been evaluated by the respondents. The terms and conditions contained in the employment notice are sacrosanct and binding on all the candidates as well as the respondents. The compliance of the terms and conditions contained in the employment notice are mandatory not only by the candidates but also by the respondents. There is no provision in the employment notice for relaxation of any of the terms and conditions contained in the employment notice. Therefore, omission and commission on the part of the applicant could not have legally been ignored by the respondents. In terms of paragraph 8.6 of the employment notice, the admission of the applicant at all stages of recruitment is purely provisional, subject to his satisfying the prescribed conditions. Allowing the applicant to take the written examination would neither debar the respondents from rejecting his candidature at a later stage in accordance 8 with the terms and conditions of the employment notice, nor would the same confer any right, much less any enforceable right, to have his answer sheet evaluated by the respondents ignoring the terms and conditions contained in the employment notice. A process of selection and appointment to a public office should be absolutely transparent, and there should be no deviation from the terms and conditions contained in the Advertisement issued by the recruiting agency during the recruitment process and the rules applicable to the recruitment process in any manner whatsoever, for a deviation in the case of a particular candidate amounts to gross injustice to the other candidates not knowing the fact of deviation benefitting only one or a few. The procedure should be same for all the candidates. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the decision taken by the respondents rejecting the applicant's candidature for violation of the terms and conditions contained in the employment notice.
8. The aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs. SaifuddullahKhan, (2011) 12 SCC 85; the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court of Haryana & Punjab in Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh, AIR 1999 Punjab & Haryana 319(FB); and the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Dr.M.Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu 9 P.S.C., 2006 Lab. & IC 2875. As in Bedanga Talukdar vs. SaifuddullahKhan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection procedure which needs to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved in relevant rules and/or in advertisement. Even where power of relaxation is or is not provided in relevant rules, it must be mentioned in the advertisement. Such power, if exercised, should be given due publicity to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to relaxation are afforded equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication is contrary to the mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further in the case of Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh (supra), the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has observed that the terms and conditions of the brochure where they use peremptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise the basic principle of fairness in competitive examinations would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions 10 would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention of the terms and conditions would decimate the very intent behind such terms and conditions. The brochure has the force of law and has to be strictly complied with. Further in the case of Dr.M.Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu P.S.C. (supra), the Hon'ble Madras High Court, following the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh (supra), has held that the terms and conditions contained in the recruitment notification have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification/relaxation can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and application filed in violation of the Instructions, etc., to candidates, and the terms and conditions contained in the recruitment notification is liable to be rejected. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions is paramount consideration, and the same cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a named authority by the use of clear language.
9. Furthermore, in the instant case, as per the scheme of the recruitment examination, the candidates shortlisted on the basis of their performance in the written examination were called to appear for PET. After the PET was conducted, 11 the final result of selection was declared and select list was published. Accordingly, the selected candidates were appointed against the vacancies notified in the employment notice, and the recruitment process was closed.
10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.N. Terdal) (Nita Chowdhury) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/