Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nand Lal Luhar vs Western Railway on 16 July, 2024
1
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2901/2023
O.A. No.2441/2023
O.A.No.2902/2023
O.A. No.3041/2023
Order reserved on 04.07.2024
Order pronounced on 16.07.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
O.A. No.2901/2023
1. Nand Lal Luhar s/o Ram Swarup Group D
Aged 28 years
r/o Gangrar Chitorgarh
Rajasthan 312 901
2. Saurabh Baban Bhoyar s/o Baban Bhoyar
Aged 22 years
r/o Ward No.25 at Bori
Post Takepar th. kuhi Nagpur
Maharashtra 441210
3. Kavita Annasahreb Ghadge d/o Annasahreb Ghadge
Aged 29 years
r/o Kumbharwadi Ahmednagar
Maharashtra 413738
4. Rekha Vishwakarma d/o Shivnat Vishwakarma
Aged 26 years
r/o H. No. B/1/18, Rama Vihar Jain Nagar
Near Balaji Mandir
Kanihawal Northwest Delhi 110 081
5. Pathan Shoebkhan Ansarkhan
s/o Ansarkhan Najirkhan
aged 26 years
r/o 2nd Ranjangaon Jalgaon
Maharashtra 424101
2
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
6. Amar Singh Yadav s/o Raj Kumar Yadav
Aged 27 years
R/o 252, 01, Archha Barethi
Chitrakoot, UP 210206
7. Variya Amit Mukeshbhai
s/o Variya Mukesh Bhai Kakubhai
aged 27 years
r/o 82 Near School Gagva Jam Nagar
Gujarat 361140
8. Tafikali Rahimatali Sayad
s/o Rahimatali Sayad
aged 30 years
r/o Jiwati Mina Road Jiwaji Pudiyal Mohada
Chandrapur Maharashtra 442908
9. Wakpanjar Sumedh Arjun
s/o Arjun
aged 29 years
r/o Near Vishwashanti Budha Vihar
Prabudha Nagar Wadali Amravati
Maharashtra 444602
10. Shravan Kumar s/o Collector Singh
Aged 28 years
r/o 19, Kutubpur Badhar
Kamalganj Bhojpur 209749
11. Sailesh Chand Pandey s/o Arun Kumar Pandey
Aged 25 years
r/o Achalpur Roop Balrampur
Uttar Pradesh 271306
12. Indra Pal Singh Verma
s/o Ram Asrey
aged about 39 years
r/o 383, Sohana Banda
Uttar Pradesh 210001
13. Solanki Manubhai Haribhai
s/o Hari Bhai
aged 36 years
r/o Bhanduri Junagadh
Gujarat 362245
3
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
14. Dudhrejiya Kumar Rambsa Bhai
s/o Ramesh Bhai Jaduram Bhai
aged 35 years
r/o Near ITI Shiv Shakti Nagar
Gondal Rajkot Gujarat
15. Rajendar Prasad Bijarniya
s/o Ramesh Bhai Jaduram Bhai
aged 35 years
r/o Near ITI Shiv Shakti Nagar
Gondal Rajkot Gujarat
16. Makvana Mukesh Palji
s/o Paljibhai
aged 38 years
r/o Railway Fatak ramaiya
Hanuman Mandir Navagadh Jetpur Rajkot
Gujrat 360370
17. Ganga Jaliya Bharatbhai Narotambhai
s/o Narotambhai
aged 40 years
r/o Kismat Dayaing Pase
Bhavala Para Jetpur Rajkot
Gujarat 360370
18. Julu Mahesh Kumar Govindbhai
s/o Jalu Govindbhai Harshulbhai
aged 39 years
r/o 297, limba Street Chhadvavadar
Rajkot Gujarat 360410
19. Rajesh Kumar Tewari s/o Chandrika Prasad Tewari
Aged 49 years
R/o Mankapur Narendrapur
Jhalahi Gonda U.P. 271302
20. Bhusadiya Bhupatbhai viththalbhai
S/o Vithhalbhai
Aged 41 years
R/o Nadoda vas Pagi Gundiyana-2
Surendranagar Gujarat 363435
21. Shobha Kumari D/o Ram Narayan Sah
Aged 23 years
R/o B-2544 gali No 66
Sant Nagar Burari Delhi 110084
4
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
22. Dheeraj Kumar
S/o Netram
Aged 23 years
R/o Chamad Mohalla Kuchavati
Bharatpur Rajasthan 321203
23. Umashankar
S/o Bhagelu Ram
Aged 28 years
H. No-Pramandpur Sajoi
Varanasi U.P. 221302
24. Rajkumar Giri
S/o Dudhnath Giri
Aged 29 years
R/o B-151, Balbir Vihar
Kirari suleman
Nagar Delhi 110086
25. Amit Kumar Yadav
S/o Chunni Yadav
Aged 24 years
R/o Andh vidyalalaya Panchkuin Road GPO
Connaught Place new Delhi 110001
26. Pokale Seema Ramesh
D/o Ramesh Pokale
Aged-38 years
Gate No.. 468, Hardev Nagar
Malwadi, Manjri Khurd
Pune-Maharashtra-412307
27. Sharwan Kumar Singh
S/o Ram Saran Singh
Aged 35 years
R/o H.No. 689, Prahladpur Road,
Near Chauraha Rana Mandir
Pooth Kalan, Delhi-110086
28. Dhotre Sunil Mohan
S/o Mohan Dhotre
Aged 27 years
R/o Sambhaji Nagar, Wadarwada
Tal: Dharur, Distt. Beed,
Maharashtra-431124
5
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
29. Vir Singh
S/o Lakhan Singh
Aged 27 years
R/o H.No. 06, Vill. & Post Saibasi,
Distt Fatehpur, UP-212663
...Applicants
Versus
1. Western Railway Mumbai
Through its General Manager
Headquarter Office
Old Building, 1st Floor, Churchgate
Mumbai - 400 020
2. Railway Recruitment Cell
Western Railway
Through its Chairman
Parcel Depot Allbhai Premji Marg,
Grant Road, Mumbai-40007
3. Railway Board
Through Secretary
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.2441/2023
1. Sapna Bhandari d/o Shri Nandan Bhandari
Aged 29 years
r/o D-50, Raghav Vihar, Prem Nagar
Dehradun Uttarakhand
2. Kiran Bisht d/o Kailash Singh Bisht
Aged 24 years
r/o B-2544, ST No.66
B Block Masjid Wali Gali
Sant Nagar Burari
3. Jyoti Tiwari d/o Prakash Chandra Tiwari
Aged 23 years
r/o B-2544, ST No.66
B Block Masjid Wali Gali
Sant Nagar Burari
6
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
4. Mohd. Asif s/o Shahid
Aged 33 years
r/o H. No.29 Mohalla Muffi Tala
Near Dr. K M Aggarwal UP Muradabad, UP
5. Mohd. Owais s/o Mohd. Mohibur Rahman
Aged 24 years
r/o 2nd Floor I-52, Moridi Road,
near Khalilullah Masjid, Batla House, New Delhi
6. Seeta Chalise d/o Parashower Chalise
Aged 33 years
r/o B-2544, ST No.66
B Block Masjid Wali Gali
Sant Nagar Burari
7. Poonam d/o Vijay Kumar Thakur
Aged 34 years
r/o H. No.29 ST No.1A Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony
Karawal Nagar, Delhi - 110 094
8. Sandeep s/o Ram Singh
Aged 33 years
r/o Village Gudhan Nagar Khatu Sham Mandir
Mangal Ki Dukan Haryana, Rohtak 124113
9. KM Poonam Baraik d/o Sukhdev Baraik
Aged 46 years
Aman Yadav H No.11, Rani Khera
North West Delhi - 110 081
10. Sita Jha d/o Lal Babu Jha
Aged 32 years
r/o H. No.25, Gali No.2 Bhagat Colony
Snat Nagar, Burari Delhi - 110 084
11. Km Rukhsar Praveen d/o Mohd. Irshad Malik
Aged 25 years
r/o Madina Colony Sarwat Muzaffar Nagar
UP 251001
12. Km Bushra d/o Liyakat
Aged 27 years
r/o F-5, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi Delhi
West Delhi - 110 041
7
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
13. Ankit Patel s/o Mahendra Patel
Aged 25 years
r/o H. No.121 Bharthal
Village Dwarka Sec - 26, South
West Delhi - 110 077
14. Sandeep Kumar Nagar s/o Sh. Randhir Singh Nagar
Aged 40 years
r/o H. No.74 Bhaisarwali, Ballabhagarh
Haryana Faridabad 121101
15. Daya Shankar s/o Anokhe Lal
Aged 27 years
r/o H. No.208, Main Bus Stand
Village Palla Delhi - 110 036
16. Mohan Kumar s/o Bangali Rajak
Aged 25 years
r/o T-31 A-5, Begumpur Malviya
Nagar South Delhi - 110 017
17. Manish Kumar s/o Dharamdev Prasad
Aged 25 years
R/o F-9, 18 4 Rama Vihar Majri Delhi - 110 081
18. Gaurav Kumar s/o Ram Bharose Singh
Aged 26 years
r/o Village & Post Sisoli
Dist. Meerut UP 25004
19. Bahadur Singh Sakya, s/o Shri Saipati Sakya
Aged 39 years
r/o H. No.923, New Janta Colony
Faridabad, Haryana
20. Bijay Magar
S/o Sahbir Magar
Aged 24 years
R/o T-97, Balmiki Basli Sahid Bhagat Singh
Park Firoj Shah Kottla Darya Ganj Delhi-110002
21. Sumit Mahto
S/o Rasraj Mahto
Aged 23 years
R/o Mharaja Agressain Manav Sewa Sansthan
Nizampur sawada Delhi North west Delhi-110081
22. Anup Chand
S/o Shyam Lal
8
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
Aged 30 years
R/o Karokhi Rudraprayag Uttarakhan-246460
23. Digpal Singh
S/o Ram Khelawan Singh
Aged 33 years
H.No-159-1 GF NEB Sarai South Delhi-110068
24. Vasim Khan
S/o Mohd Saeed
Aged 34 years
R/o 255, Arya Nagar no-2 Ghaziabad ward No 31 Loni U.P.
201102
25. Rohit Kumar
S/o Balak Ram
Aged 24 years
R/o 137, Ambedkar Colony, Raipur Amwala Tarala,
Uttarakhand-248008
26. Ranee Devi S/o Lallo Ram PrajapatiAged 29 years
R/o V& Po. Khaptiha, Teh- Pailani UP-210001
27. Amit Pal S/o Suresh Pal
Aged 24 years
R/o H.No. 357 Divya Jyoti Niwas Mangol pur Khuard
Delhi-110083
28. Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Vijaypal Singh
Aged 28 Aged years
Rio Oledha Buland Shahar UP 203408
29. Meenu D/o Jagdish Singh
Aged 25 years
R/o F-5 Nihal Vihar Delhi-110041
30. Reena Oraon S/o Birsa Oraon
Aged 23 years
R/o ST Michael Blind School Campus Near Reliance Fresh,
Ranchi Jharkhand-834001
31. Satish Jatav S/o
Veerendra Jatav
Aged 24 years
Rio Madhav Andh Ashram Jhansi Road Gwalior MP
474009
9
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
32. Ankur Kumar S/o Krishan Pal
Aged 25
R/o 122 Near Shiv Mandir Salempur, U.P. 251001
33. Preeti D/o Man Singh
Aged 25 years
R/o H.No. 215-216-B, Near Metro Pillar No 536 Mundka
New Delhi 110041
34. Sinam Nobi Devi D/o Sinam Manitombi Singh
Aged 37 years
R/o H.No. 345 GF Near Radha Krishna Mandir Karal Delhi-
110081
35. Prakash Ram Vishwakarma
S/o Keshap Rma Vishwakarma
Aged 40 years
R/o Village Goshani Champawat Uttarakhand-262528
36. Vinay Kumar S/o Malkhan Singh
Aged 40 years
R/o A-168 Tekhand village mavi Mohalla Near DLF
Prime Tower Gate No 2 Okhla
Phase 1 New Delhi-110020
37. Bharat S/o Ashok Kumar
Aged 22 years
R/o H. No. 494/12 Kajiyan Mohalla
Punjabi Bazar Jind Haryana 126102
38. Nirmala S/o Shyam Lal
Aged 23 years
R/o H. No. B 2544 Gali No 66 Sunt Nagar
Buarari North Delhi-110084
...Applicants
Versus
1. Northern Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. Railway Recruitment Cell
Northern Railway
Through its Chairperson
10
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
Having its office at
Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-24
3. Railway Board
Through its Secretary
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No. 2902/2023
1. Vasu Dev
S/o Shri Kaloo-Ram
Aged 23 Yrs.
Rio Aanta Teh., Ramsar 'Sheo, Barmer, Rajasthan-344701
2. Anoop Ram
S/O Keval Ram
Aged 22 years
R/O Sari Ki Dham Mandawas
Rohat Rali, Rajasthan-306421
3. Jabbar Singh
S/O Chhug Singh
Aged 27 years
R/o Vill Phogera Post Phogera The Gadra Road Rajasthan-
344011
4. Jitender Singh Rajpurohit
S/o Suresh Singh Rajpurohit
Aged 28 Years
R/o Kheteshwar Basti Sabalpur Makarana
Rajasthan Nagaur-341520
5. Arjun Sharma
S/o Ghanshyam Sharma
Aged 24 years
R/O Digari Kallan Brahamano ka bass Jodhpur Rajasthan
Jodhpur-342001
6. Dinesh Chouhan
S/o Teja Ram Chouhan
Aged 29 years
Rio Ward No-1 New Basti.
Ramdeora Jaisalmer Rajasthan-345023
7. Shyam Lal S/o Ghevar Ram
Aged 28 years
11
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
R/o Beldaro Ki Dheengsara, Dhaniya Nandwani, Nagaur-
Rajasthan-341001
8. Mohammad Samir
S/o Mohammad Bilal
Aged 28 years
R/o Mochiyo Ki Majid Sankadi Gali Meet Market Rajasthan
Jodhpur-342001
9. Mohd Zakir Alam
S/o Mohd Samih Alam
Aged 27 years
R/o Gudarganwan, Begusarai Rampur
Matihani Bihar-851129
10. Rohitas Meena
S/o Lallu Ram Meena
Aged 22 years
R/o Sikrai, Dolika, Dausa
Rajasthan-303304
11. Dropadi Soni
D/O Jugal Kishor Soni
Aged 25 years
R/o Netraheen Vikash Sansthan Kamla
Nehru Nagar D Sector
Rajasthan Jodhpur-342008
12. Manoj Kumar Sharma
S/o Inder Mal Sharma
Aged 46 years
R/o-Rajasthan Blind Hostel
Makarwali Road Ajmer Rajasthan 305001
13. Pankaj Kumar
S/o- Ramanand
Aged 31 years
R/o 187 Brahmanon Ki Dhani
Vill Gambhira, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur
Rajasthan-322001
14. Arvind
S/o Murali Lal Soni
Aged 27 years
R/o Village Nagar Tiraya sunar Gali
Nadai Rajasthan Bharatpur-321602
12
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
15. Sharvan Kumar Soni
S/o Shri Om Prakash Soni
Aged 26 years
R/o H.No.242, St. 242,
Vill. Nokha Mandi Near Kishan Dharam Kanta Road, Ward
No.3 Teh Nokha, Dist. Bikaner, Rajasthan-334803
16. Shivraj
S/o Reema
Aged 30 years
R/o Foys Nagar Road Choti Basti Ajaysar Ajmer Rajasthan-
305001
17. Pawan Kumar Mishra
S/o Ram Krishan Mishra
Aged 26 years
R/o Village Bhukuri Bhor Kuri Sitapur U.P. 261141
18. Santosh Kumar Sharma
S/o Siya Ram Sharma Aged 36 years
R/o Pohadi Darbhanga Bihar-847103
19. Sunil Kumar
S/o Bhanwar Lal Aged 25 years
R/o Nokha Bikaner Rajasthan 334803
20. Champa Lal
S/o Nand Ram Singaria Aged 29 years
R/o Sarak Ka Badiya Bhilwara Rajasthan-311804
21. Dungar Singh Gurjar
S/o Govind Singh Gurjar Aged 27 years
R/o Village- Jitredi P/O Semla Bhartpur Rajasthan-321205
22. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Hari Singh Aged 24 years
R/o Akwa Sikar Rajasthan-332315
23. Jamin Ali
S/o Shakir Ali Aged 27 years
R/o Pili Khan Nayi Basti Loha Khan Ajmer Rajasthan -
305001
24. Rinkal Tiwari
S/o Mahesh Chand Tiwari Aged 31 years
R/o Village Barel Po Itaura Tehsil Uttar Pradesh-210431
13
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
25. Jugal Kishore Sharma
S/o Parmeshwar Lal
Aged 27 years
R/o Brahmand Ka Vas Dulrasar Sardarsahar Churv
Rajasthan-331022
26. Rajendra Sahu
S/o Mahaveer Sahu
Aged 24 years
R/o Gali No-2 Kachi Sadak Behind Hanuman Mandir Near
Metro Pillar No 507 Mundka Delhi 110044
27. Jitendra Choudhary
S/o Bhagu ram Choudhary
Aged 32 years
R/o- Netraheen Vikas Sansthan Nehru Nagar Jodhpur
Rajasthan-342008
28. Pinki
D/o-Chariter Mandal
Aged 29 years
R/o Janta Adarsh and Vidyalay Sidika Nagar
New Delhi-110049
29. Jagdish Kushwah
S/o Chotelal Kushwah
Aged 31 years
R/o-228 The Bankhedi Po-Singpur Ward No 3 Padrai
Hosangabad
Madhya Pradesh-461990
30. Barkatullah Ansari
D/o Ansar Ahmed Ansari
Aged 29 years
R/o H.No 311 Dr. Jakir Hussain ward
Behind EWS School Gohalpur
Jabalpur M.P. 482003
31. Sonu Kumawat
D/o Gopal Lal
Aged 41 years
R/o A-94, Maharv Nagar
Manywas, M.S. Road
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020
..Applicants
Versus
14
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
1. Northern Western Railway
Through its General Manager
Having its office at
Headquarter office
FA & CAO, 3rd Floor,
Near Jawahar Circle,
Jaipur-302017
2. Railway Recruitment Cell
North Western Railway
Through its Chairman
Power House Road, Opposite DRM Office,
Jaipur-302006
3. Railway Board
Through its Secretary
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
...Respondents
O.A. No.3041/2023
1. Yash Sharma s/o Vijay Sharma (Group D)
Aged 24 years
r/o Ward No.4, Sanjid Naka Lalghati Road
Laxmi Nagar, Mandsaur
Distt. Mandsaur, MP 458001
2. Arti Kulhar d/o Mohan Lal Kulhar
Aged 39 years
r/o H. No.303, Sneh Appt
Appt No. 11/1 Nandlalpura
Indore, MP - 452007
3. Nitesh Kumar Sahu s/o Rameshwar Sahu
aged 33 years
r/o 152, Ramnagar, Naraini
Banda - 210129 - UP
4. Amit Sharma s/o Rajendra Prasad Sharma
Aged 37 years
r/o Rangpur Road, Pratap Colony
Ward No.42, Rangpur, Kota, Teh. Ladpura
Kota, Rajasthan 324002
5. Bharti Kushwah d/o Ram Karan
Aged 28 years
15
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
r/o C/o Mahesh Drishtiheen Kalyan Sangh
A B Road, Vijay Nagar,
Indore 452010, MP
6. Yasmeen Mansuri d/o Akleen
Aged 27 years
r/o C/o Mahesh Drishtiheen Kalyan Sangh
A B Road, Vijay Nagar,
Indore 452010, MP
7. Arjun Pratap Verma s/o Prem Lal Verma
Aged 24 years
R/o VPO Kulgarhi, Satna
MP 485446
...Applicants
Versus
1. Western Central Railway
Through its General Manager
Headquarter Office
Old Building, 1st Floor, Churchgate
Mumbai - 400 020
2. Railway Recruitment Cell
West Central Railway
Through its Chairman
RB-IV, 290, Station Road, South Civil Lines
Jabalpur - 482001
3. Railway Board
Through Secretary
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
For applicants:
Mr. S K Rungta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant
Singh, Advocate
For respondents:
Mr. K M Singh, Mr. S K Tripathi, Mr. R S Rana, Mr. Sanjeev
Yadav and Mr. Ashish Rai, Advocates in respective O.As.
16
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch
Item Nos.23 & 24
ORDER
Mr. Justice Ranjit More:
The facts and the issue involved in these O.As. being identical, we propose to dispose of them by this common order. O.A. No.2901/2023 has been argued by respective learned counsel as a lead case; and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, we refer the facts of this O.A.
2. The respondents issued Centralized Employment Notice (CEN), being RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 for filling up total number of 103769 vacancies in Level-1 of 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) Pay Matrix in different Zonal Railways. Number of vacancies in each category of disability, including Visually Impaired (VI) category, were advertised. In this O.A., we are concerned with respondent No.1, i.e., Western Railway, and the number of vacancies notified in Level-1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix were 10734, out of which 171 were reserved for VI category.
The respondents declared the first select list, bearing Notice No.4 dated 18.01.2023 for document verification and 17 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 medical examination, notifying the cut-off marks for each category, including VI, according to which, the cut-off marks for VI category, to which the applicants belong, is 57.27633. Accordingly, the shortlisted candidates were intimated through email/SMS and their admit cards were uploaded for document verification.
It is the case of the applicants that they had secured more than the cut-off marks fixed for VI category candidates and were, therefore, called for document verification along with their medical examination, which took place between 01.02.2023 and 10.02.2023.
3. The respondents appointed the other similarly situated persons whose documents were found in order and who had been found medically fit, but the respondents, instead of appointing 171 VI category candidates higher in merit, including the applicants, issued impugned Notice dated 23.03.2023, declaring the Provisional Panel Part - 1 after document verification for consideration of appointment of different categories, including Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). It included only 84 blind candidates, 18 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 who were higher in merit instead of 171 candidates against the posts reserved for VI category, without explicitly stating any reason for exclusion of meritorious blind applicants.
4. The respondents thereafter notified another impugned Notice No.11 dated 27.04.2023, notifying Provisional Panel Part - 2 wherein only 10 meritorious VI category candidates were included, thus making the total of such candidates as 94 against 171 reserved vacancies. Further, the respondents notified another Notice No.13 dated 05.06.2023, notifying Provisional Panel Part - 3, wherein no meritorious blind candidate has been included, including the applicants, on the ground that reservation for VI category will be divided amongst blind and low vision (LV) candidates and only 85 meritorious blind candidates will be considered for appointment leaving out the applicants, who are higher in merit and remaining vacancies are proposed to be filled up by the LV candidates lower in merit.
It is the case of the applicants that on inquiry from the respondents, it was revealed that they are distributing the 171 vacancies reserved for VI category candidates by sub-dividing 19 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 it into two categories, i.e., blind and LV, and are offering only 85 vacancies to the blind, and the remaining 86 reserved vacancies to LV candidates lower in merit.
5. Mr. S K Rungta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants took us through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act'), especially Sections 33 & 34 thereof. Relying upon these provisions, he submitted that though identification of posts for reservation in terms of Section 33 of the Act is permissible, there cannot be any sub- division on bifurcation in the categories mentioned in clause
(a) of Section 34 of the Act.
Mr. Rungta submitted that bifurcation done by the respondents is evident from the fact that out of total 171 reserved vacancies, they have earmarked 85 vacancies for blind category and remaining 86 for LV category candidates, which is contrary to the scheme of the Act.
Mr. Rungta further submitted that the reservation to the categories mentioned in Section 34 of the Act should be vacancy-wise and not post-wise. However, the respondents 20 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 are acting contrary to this provision, inasmuch as they are giving 85 posts to blind category and 86 to LV category persons.
Mr. Rungta, in support of his submission, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble of Supreme Court in Union of India & another v. National Federation of the Blind & others (2013) 10 SCC 772, and a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in National Federation of the Blind v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Sangthan & others (W.P. (C) No.9520/2018) decided on 16.10.2023.
In short, it is the submission of Mr. Rungta that in terms of Section 34 of the Act, blind and LV should be taken as one category and could not have been divided or bifurcated into two different categories. The respondents are, however, doing exactly this, thereby depriving the meritorious blind candidates; and accommodating the LV candidates, who are below in merit than that of the blind candidates, including the applicants.
21
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
6. Per contra, Mr. K M Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that under the subject CEN, the Western Railway has notified a total of 10734 vacancies and out of which, vacancies for PwBD is 556, and the vacancies notified for VI category is 171; out of which 86 for blind and 85 for LV. He submitted that in terms of the ibid Act, 1% of the vacancies are required to be reserved in the category of disability of VI, which category consists of blind and LV; and the respondents, while undertaking the selection process, have complied with the provisions contained in Section s 33 & 34 of the Act. To support his contention, Mr. Singh relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari & others v. Shakuntala Shukla & others, (2002) 6 SCC 127. He further submitted that the O.A. cannot be entertained on the following grounds:
(a) The applicants have only challenged the Provisional Panel Parts - 1, 2 & 3 of Notice dated 23.03.2023, 27.04.2023 and 05.06.2023 respectively in respect of CEN RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 for recruitment of various posts in Level-1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix, with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for appointment to said 22 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 post on the basis of their merit in VI category. He submitted that the applicants have not challenged the Recruitment Notice, which has the force of rules; and, therefore, the O.A. cannot be entertained.
(b) The applicants, in pursuance of the subject CEN, participated in the selection process and upon being unsuccessful it is not open for them to challenge the same.
(c) The respondents have also raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the O.A. on the ground that in the event the reliefs claimed by the applicants are granted, the LV category candidates will be affected and as they have not been impleaded in the present O.A. as party respondents, no relief can be granted in favour of the applicants.
7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the rival submissions advanced by both the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.
23
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
8. The details of vacancies at a glance are given in the CEN, wherein the Railway-wise summary of vacancies for various posts was furnished. Further, the parameters (qualifications, medical standard and suitability of the post for PwBD etc.) of various posts included in the CEN are at Annexure A and the post-wise vacancies for all the notified posts are at Annexure B. Note 2 & Note 3 given in the said CEN read thus:-
"2. Above vacancies also include backlog of PwBD.
3. The PwBD reservation in the vacancies of following Critical Operational Posts cannot be given due to job requirements:
Sl. No. Designation Total Vacancy
1. Assistant Pointsman 14870
2. Assistant Bridge 913
3. Track Maintainer 40721
Grade IV
Total 56504
However, the required percentage of PwBD reservation in the vacancies of the above posts has been adjusted in the vacancies of other remaining posts where PwBD reservation can be given."
For ready reference, Annexure A to the said CEN reads as under:-
24
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 Annexure B is about Railway-wise Railway wise and post post-wise vacancies for all the notified posts. In the present O.As., we are concerned with the Western Railway. Annexure B is thus reproduced hereinbelow:25
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
9. The submission of Mr. Rungta, learned senior counsel for the applicants that the reservation should be vacancy-wise and there cannot be further sub-division of categories, as enumerated in Section 33 of the ibid Act, is no doubt supported by the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India & another v. National Federation of the Blind & others (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in National Federation of the Blind v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan Sangthan (supra). However, the subject CEN does not support the contention of learned senior counsel. 26
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
10. After going through the impugned CEN, we find that that 556 vacancies are reserved for PwBD and out of which, 171 vacancies are notified for VI category. So far as the Western Railway, which we are dealing with in the present O.As., is concerned, total number of posts advertised is 10734; out of which, the VI category is entitled for 1% of reservation and the respondents have, as stated above, notified 171 vacancies for this category, which is equivalent to 1%. Thus, we find no merit in the contention of Mr. Rungta that the respondents have sub-divided or bifurcated the categories. The respondents have not done so, rather they have identified the posts having regard to the suitability of the candidates belonging to PwBD category.
11. For easy reference, we refer to Section 33 of the Act, which is reproduced herein below:
"33. Identification of posts for reservation - The appropriate Government shall-
(i) identify posts in the establishments which can be held by respective category of persons with benchmark disabilities in respect of the vacancies reserved in accordance with the provisions of section 34;
(ii) constitute an expert committee with representation of persons with benchmark disabilities for identification of such posts; and 27 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
(iii) undertake periodic review of the identified posts at an interval not exceeding three years."
A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the identification of posts for reservation is permissible and this can be done having regard to the suitability of the candidates to a particular category to that post.
12. In the CEN itself, the respondents have given the suitability for PwBD to the post in question vide Annexure A. This shows that the candidates falling in blind and LV disability are suitable only for vacancies in 5 posts, namely,
(i) Assistant (Workshop), (ii) Assistant TL & AC (Workshop),
(iii) Assistant Works, (iv) Assistant Works (Workshop); and
(v) Hospital Assistant. It is not at all the case of the applicants that the last meritorious candidate from LV category has been selected against aforesaid 5 posts.
13. So far as the candidates belonging to LV category are concerned, apart from above 5 categories of posts, they are suitable in another 6 categories of posts, namely, (i) Assistant Depot (Stores), (ii) Assistant Loco Shed (Diesel), (iii) 28 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 Assistant Loco Shed (Electrical), (iv) Assistant Operations (Electrical), (v) Assistant Signal & Telecom; and (vi) Assistant TL & AC.
14. With regard to remaining 6 posts, namely, (i) Assistant Bridge, (ii) Assistant C&W, (iii) Assistant Pointsman, (iv) Assistant Track Machine, (v) Assistant TRD; and (vi) Track Maintainer Grade IV, no candidate from the categories of blind and LV is found suitable.
15. In our considered view, identification of posts by the respondents, as stated above, by making provision in Annexure A to CEN, is in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 33 of the ibid Act. In this regard, it is the specific case of the respondents that the posts identified as suitable for LV candidates cannot be filled by blind candidates, as the functions of the posts identified for LV involve handling of machinery due to nature of job attached to such posts and if the blind candidates were to be posted to such posts, then their disability will interfere in effective performance of duties and not only will endanger the safety of candidates themselves but also endanger the safety of the 29 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 public, as the work of posts identified for LV involves the maintenance of the Railway machinery and assets. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the O.As. sans merits.
16. Now, we deal with the objections raised by the respondents in paragraph (6) above.
17. It is the specific case of the applicants that the blind candidates, like the applicants herein, though meritorious, are not selected and instead, less meritorious candidates from LV category are appointed. The applicants are seeking direction to the respondents to consider them for appointment to Level - 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix on the basis of their merit in VI category without impleading the persons likely to be affected as party respondents. We have already recorded our finding that appointment to the categories of blind and LV are made on the basis of suitability to the post in question. We also find that the appointment and selection has been done perfectly in accordance with the CEN, which is not even challenged in the present O.As. If the reliefs claimed by the applicants are granted, the candidates belonging to LV category are bound to be prejudiced; hence, they would be 30 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 necessary party to the lis, but the applicants have not chosen to implead the persons likely to be affected as party respondents. On this count, the O.As. cannot be entertained. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjan Kumar & others v. State of Bihar & others, (2014) 6 SCC 187, especially the observations made in paragraph 13, which read thus:-
"12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are disposed to think that in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners."
18. We find that 1% reservation for the blind and VI category, as mandated under Section 34 of the Act, has been followed by the respondents under the CEN. The respondents have reserved 171 vacancies for VI category and vacancies have been adjusted according to the suitability of the persons for the posts in question. It is also worth mentioning that the applicants had the knowledge about these facts and participated in the selection process, as all the details were given in the CEN itself. However, they have not been selected for various reasons. It is trite law that the candidates, who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the 31 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 procedure laid down therein, are not entitled to question the same on the ground that the process was unfair, or that there was a lacuna. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjan Kumar's case, wherein their Lordships observed as follows:
"14. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others. In the said case a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realized that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.
15. In this context, we may quote a passage from Madan Lal v. State of J & K with profit: -
"9....It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."32
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
16. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others v. Shakuntala Shukla and others, the Court observed as follows: -
"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
17. In Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumar, the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
18. Thus, the twin contentions proponed by the learned counsel for the appellant deserve acceptation and, accordingly, we allow the appeals and, ex consequenti, the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the batch of appeals and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Awadh Kishor v. State of Bihar are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs."
19. In the same perspective, reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra), especially the observations made in paragraphs 32 to 34, which read thus:
"32. In conclusion, this Court recorded that the issue of estoppel by conduct can only be said to be available in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous representation and it is on that score a further question 33 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 arises as to whether there was any unequivocal assurance prompting the assured to alter his position or status - the situation, however, presently does not warrant such a conclusion and we are thus not in a position to lend concurrence to the contention of Dr. Dhawan pertaining the doctrine of estoppel by conduct. It is to be noticed at this juncture that while the doctrine of estoppel by conduct may not have any application but that does not bar a contention as regards the right to challenge an appointment upon due participation at the interview/selection. It is a remedy which stands barred and it is in this perspective in Om Parkash Shukla (Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down in no uncertain terms that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise.
33. Subsequently, the decision in Om Prakash stands followed by a later decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, wherein this Court stated as below:
"9 Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves selected to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the 34 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such petitioner.
10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee."
34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not 35 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
Hence, the applicants, having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful, are estopped from challenging the selection process.
20. As referred above, the position of reservation and identification of the posts reserved for a particular category was made clear in the CEN itself. If the applicants have any grievance about the advertisement or reservation or identification of posts, they should have challenged the CEN, which has force of statutory rules. In the absence of challenge to the CEN, we cannot entertain the applicants' prayer. Reference in this regard may be made on the decision of the Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & others, (2011) 12 SCC 85. Paragraph 28 of the judgment reads as under:-
"28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be 36 O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24 conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is - 23 specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
21. The Apex Court has also taken a similar view in The State of Tamil Nadu & others v. G. Hemalathaa & another, (2019) 11 SCALE 537, relevant excerpt thereof reads thus:
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission."37
O.A. No.2901/2023 & batch Item Nos.23 & 24
22. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that these O.As. fail both on preliminary objections as well as merits. They are accordingly dismissed.
23. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Sanjeeva Kumar ) ( Justice Ranjit More ) Member (A) Chairman /sunil/