Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
) O.A No. 060/00574/2015 vs Union Of India on 27 January, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Date of decision -27.01.2017
Reserved on 16.01.2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1) O.A No. 060/00574/2015
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Ram Kumar resident of village and post office Bass Khurd, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. D.S. Adlakha.
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Northern Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC), Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi, through its Chairman.
2. Assistant Personal Officer (APO), Northern Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC), Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. R.T.P.S Tulsi, Advocate along with Sh. Lakhinder
Bir Singh.
2) O.A No. 060/00693/2015
Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Satbir Singh resident of village Buana Lakhu, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. J.S. Dahiya.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its General Manager, Northern Railways, Zonal Office (North), Baroda House New Delhi.
2. Assistant Personal Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-110024.
3. D.R.M. Northern Railway, Firozpur, Punjab.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. R.T.P.S Tulsi, Advocate along with Sh.
Lakhinder Bir Singh.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. Learned counsel for the parties have made a request that both the petitions be heard together as these involve identical questions of law and grounds. The commonness of facts of each case allows us to give them a joint hearing and as such these have been taken up for final disposal by a common order as requested by the parties. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from OA No. 060/00574/2015 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. U.O.I & Ors.).
2. The respondents issued employment notification no. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2012 dated 30.08.2012 showing their intention to start the recruitment process to fill up the 7368 posts in Pay Band-1 Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- . It was made clear in the recruitment notice that recruitment process consists of a written examination followed by Physical Efficiency Test (in short PET) and further, the final recruitment panel will be strictly based on merit position obtained in the written examination. The applicant being eligible, applied for the post and was called for the written examination which held on 17.11.2013. On being declared successful, the applicant was short listed for physical test and accordingly, appeared for PET which was held on 24.03.2014 where he was found to be fit.
3. Vide letter dated 21.04.2014, the applicant was called for the verification of documents as well as for medical examination at the DRM office, Northern Railway, Firozepur (Punjab) on 26.05.2014. After verification of documents, the applicant was subjected to medical examination on 28.05.2014 at Railway Hospital Ludhiana. He was informed that result will be declared on their official website. After two months, the respondents declared the result on their website. However, the name of the applicant was found mentioned in the list of candidates, whose cases were further recommended by the committee to the technical expert for examination. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents to settle the issue but he was not informed about his status and ultimately in the month of Dec, 2014, the applicant came to know from official website that his candidature has been rejected on the ground that forensic document expert has reported mismatch in handwriting/signature on application form, OMR & Document verification papers etc.. Thereafter, immediately the applicant requested the respondents for providing the report given by the expert which became basis of cancellation of his candidature and when he did not receive any information, he submitted an application under RTI on 07.01.2015 and on 25.02.2015, he received reply that on account of mismatch in handwriting/Signature on application & OMR, his candidature has been cancelled. Hence, the present O.A.
4. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant admitted the factual accuracy. However, they submitted that in the notification they have clearly stipulated that a candidate should fill up the application form in his/her own hand-writing. In para 5 of the said notification, it has been made clear that selection and empanelment does not confer any right of appointment. Admission of the candidate at all stages of recruitment would be purely provisionally subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions. Allowing the applicant to appear in different stages of recruitment will not confer any right to seek mandamus for issuance of appointment letter. It is submitted that at the time of submission of documents, the committee of three Railway officers constituted for the purpose, observed that writing on the relevant papers did not match and accordingly, applicants case was sent for detailed examination by Government Examiner Questioned Documents (in short GEQD), nominated by Government of India, Ministry of Railway. On receipt of expert report regarding mismatch of his hand-writing/signatures, the applicants case was rejected by the Competent Authority.
5. The applicant has also filed rejoinder wherein apart from contradicting the averment made in the written statement, he submitted that once the respondents have taken thumb impression, then they have also to examine the thumb impression on the application form and other documents, thereafter to come to a logical conclusion regarding impersonification.
6. We have heard Sh. Diwan S. Adlakha and Sh. J.S. Dahiya, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. R.T.P.S Tulsi, Avocate along with Sh. Lakhinder Bir Singh, counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that officers of the respondents had verified the applicants signature and thumb impression at all the stages of recruitment processes of written examination, PET and medical fitness and documents verification, and found that all are same and match with those on applicants form and other documents,therefore, there was no reason to get the signature/writing appearing on the applications form/OMR, documents verification and medical form and other documents got verified by the documents experts just before publishing of final merit list, that too, they had done behind the back of the applicant, therefore, there is violation of principle of natural justice. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Honble Rajasthan High Court in case of Harun Mohammad Shaikh Vs. The District Establishment Committee, Udaipur and Others, 2001 LIC 3071 and the judgment passed by the single bench of the Honble jurisdictional High Court in case of Kapil Dev Vs. U.O.I & Ors. (CWP No. 21150/2013) dated 01.08.2016.
8. Per contra, Sh. R.T.P.S Tulsi, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made in the O.A and submitted that merely appearing in selection process will not confer any right upon the applicant for seeking appointment, as already made clear in notification that appearing in selection process does not confer any right, therefore, no relief can be granted in the O.A. Once, it has been found during the verification of documents by the committee of three officers of department with regard to mismatch of hand writing and, thereafter, an opinion was sought from Government experts and based upon his report it was decided that hand writing does not match accordingly his candidature was cancelled. He apprised this court that this issue has already been settled by the Division Bench of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 4526/2015 titled Jeetendar Singh Vs. U.OI decided on 08.09.2016 where order passed by this court in another petition has been upheld by rejecting the similar plea of the applicant, therefore, he prayed that this petition be also deserved the same treatment. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed in CWP No. 12264-2016 titled Parveen Kumar Vs. C.A.T, & Ors. decided on 08.11.2016.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and we are in agreement with the submission made by the respondents that issue involved in present O.A, has already been considered by the jurisdictional High Court in case of Parveen Kumar (supra) where this same arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant were negated by the DB.
10. Similar view has also been taken by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in case of Jeetender Singh Vs. U.O.I & Ors. (O.A No. 4526/2015 decided on 08.09.2016) where plea of violation of principle of natural justice by the applicant therein was also considered and rejected. The applicant also fails to show any contrary law to what has been held by Division Bench of Honble jurisdictional High Court. The applicant has also not challenged the report submitted by the Government handwriting expert. Merely, applicants have put Thumb Impression does not Ispo facto makes the report submitted by Government handwriting expert invalid or doubtful. Once categorical finding recorded by the government expert with regard to mismatch of handwriting of the applicant then no direction in shape of writ of mandamus to the respondents can be issued for considering his case for appointment in the light of the observation made by the DB of jurisdictional High Court in case of Parveen Singh (supra). We will be failing in our duty if we do not consider the judgment as relied upon by the applicant in case of Kapil Dev (Supra). We are of the considered view that facts in that case are entirely different then facts of the present case. In case of Kapil Dev (supra), the respondents have prescribed that candidate has to makes his signature in a particular fashion which the court held that respondents cannot compel candidates to subscribe the sign in particular fashion where in present case facts are otherwise and rejection of applicants candidature is based upon the expert report and based upon the documents, hand writing of the applicant does not match with other documents, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in O.As, and as such both the O.As are dismissed being devoid of merit.
11. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 27.01.2017 jk 1 O.A No. 060/00693/2015 & O.A No. 060/00574/2015