Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sri Ram Charan Meena vs General Manager N C Rly on 12 August, 2025
Reserved on 06.08.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 12th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1165 of 2014
Sri Ram Charan Meena S/o Late Durgi Ram Meena, R/o Meena
Nagar, Kosi Kalla, District Mathura. Presently posted as Store Clerk,
under the control of Sr. D.M.M. Agra
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager (P), North Central
Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Senior Divisional Material Manager, North Central Railway,
Agra.
3. Deputy Chief Material Manager, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
4. Chief Controller Officer (store), North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) to issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned orders dated 09.08.2014 passed by Deputy Chief Material, Jhansi Division, Jhansi - respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. A- 1 to this Original Application with Compilation No I) RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page
(ii) to issue an order or direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents authorities not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the applicant on the post of Junior Clerk at the present place of posting.
(iii) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) to award the cost of the Application to the applicant."
3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2014 issued from the Office of Deputy Chief Material Manager, Jhansi Division, Jhansi i.e., respondent no. 3 by way of which the applicant has been reverted from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Khalasi with immediate effect. The applicant has contended that the impugned order is illegal and passed in absolute violation of the rules and regulations prescribed in the manual of the respondents. It has also been alleged by the applicant that he was given promotion to the post of Junior Clerk by way of order dated 26.07.2011 wherein it was stipulated that respondents will give him three chances to clear the typing test within a period of two years. Applicant has alleged that although two chances were given within the prescribed period, the third chance was given after the expiry of the prescribed period and therefore he could not clear the typing test. Thus, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.08.2014 by way of which he has been reverted to the post of Khalasi, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of Junior Clerk and granting him exemption from clearing the typing test. Respondents have contended the case of the applicant holding that the impugned order was passed in absolute accordance to rules and regulations. It was clearly stipulated in the promotion order itself that the applicant must clear the requisite typing test in three chances and despite being given three chances, which the applicant has adequately availed, he could not clear the typing test. Thus, prayer has been made on the part of the respondents to dismiss the OA.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Khalasi on 14.12.1998. He was given promotion on 01.08.2011 under the 33 1/3% departmental quota vide letter no 45/2011. Certain conditions were stipulated in the letter no. 45/2011 i.e., it was mandatory for the applicant to clear the typing test required to be completed within two years and maximum three chances were to be allowed for the same. Since the applicant has been promoted on 01.08.2011, two years time was expired on 01.08.2013. Although the respondents extended three chances to the applicant for clearing the typing test but the applicant failed to clear the test. Further, the third chance was given beyond the two years stipulated time period and therefore this action of the respondent was illegal. The applicant worked on the promoted post since 01.08.2011 till reversion order was passed. His services on the promoted post were of the utmost satisfaction to the employer, Notice was issued against the applicant for submission of reply mentioning therein that as to why he be not reverted back. The applicant made reply and impugned order was passed reverting the applicant from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Khalasi on the original post. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued hat although in the OA, the applicant has not taken plea for exemption from the typing test but the in the Supplementary Affidavit, specific plea was taken that there is provision in case typing test within two years is not cleared and applicant failed and his appointment was made between age group of 35 to 45 years and on completion of 45 years, exemption will be given to the applicant for clearing the typing test. To substantiate this fact, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the documents annexed with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 30.05.2017 and further argued that the applicant is also entitled for relaxation as has been indicated in Annexure No SR
- 5 which contains the Fundamental Rule 26. Thus, argued that OA be allowed and impugned order passed against the applicant reverting him back to his original post be set aside and the applicant be promoted on the post on which he was earlier promoted exempting RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page the typing test. To further substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 671 of 2017 titled Smt Vimlesh Chandra Vs Union of India and others.
ii. Judgment dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1556 of 2016 titled Sarwan Kumar Meena Vs Union of India and others.
iii. Reliance has also been placed on the letter dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, GoI titled "Proposal for filing SLP against the order dated 22.02.2018 & 09.04.2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court Jaipur in Writ Petition No. 15935 & 15936 of 2016" arguing that in the said letter, it was noted by the Competent Authority of the Railways that once more chance to the similarly placed candidates be given.
iv. Judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 4911 of 2012 titled Union of India and Others Vs CAT & Anr. and connected matters.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that although the applicant was provisionally promoted for six months and empanelled in the promotion list but there was specific stipulation in the promotion order itself for clearance of the typing test within two years. It was next argued that maximum three chances were to be provided to the applicant and respondents have provided three chances to the applicant but he did not clear the typing test. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant. On submission of the reply, the applicant was reverted vide the impugned order. It was also argued that the applicant cannot take benefit of the fundamental rule as argued by him. It was further argued that although the applicant has not specified in his pleading his date of birth but in the OA in RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page verification clause, he has disclosed his age about four years. The OA has been filed on 09.09.2014. If the date of birth of filing of the OA and age disclosed in the verification clause are taken into consideration, then the applicant at the time of impugned order was passed, has not crossed the age of 45 years and thus the applicant can also not take benefit of the case laws relied upon by him. As in those cases the exemption was allowed when the candidate concerned had completed 45 years of age. Referring to the entire documents annexed with the counter and supplementary counter, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and thus the OA is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the documents on record.
8. In this matter, as has been discussed herein above the applicant was promoted vide letter dated 26.07.2011 on the post of Junior Clerk. The promotion was made effective from 01.08.2011. Conditions stipulated in the order dated 26.07.2011 was that departmental training will be imparted to the candidates who are promoted to clear the typing test. Typing test was required to be cleared within two years and maximum three chances were to be given to clear the same. In that situation, the promotion will be made absolute. A perusal of the records also reveals that three chances i.e., on 13.10.2012, 09.05.2013 and 13.05.2014 were given to clear the typing test to the applicant but he failed. Record also reveals that a departmental training facility was given to the applicant before entering into the typing test. Submissions raised on the part of the applicant that no training was provided is false. When the applicant did not clear the typing test, a show cause notice dated 15.07.2014 was issued to which the applicant replied on 08.08.2014. After receiving the reply on 09.08.2014, the applicant was reverted back to his original post of Khalasi with immediate effect.
RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page
9. Before discussing the submissions raised across the Bar, it will be useful to quote the ratio laid down in the case laws as relied upon by the applicant's counsel:
Referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in D B Civil Writ Petition No 4911 of 2012 (supra), learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion contained therein:
"What is evident from the stand of the petitioners is that in para 4.5 of the reply to the original application filed before the Tribunal, they asserted that four opportunities were granted to the respondent Padam Singh Verma, in one of which he was absent. Similarly in the case of Ram Kishore, it was mentioned in the review petition that he was granted four opportunities, but he has not availed fourth chance due to sickness. If that is the case of petitionerrailways that they on their own have been allowing four chances to others and the respondents, there is no reason why fourth chance should not be allowed to respondentGuru Dayal Prajapat. Moreover, the petitioners have allowed such opportunity on as many as six occasions to Kamlesh Kumari, whose judgement has been relied by the Tribunal in the case of all three respondents. As regards the contention that the Tribunal should not have directed to consider the certificate of passing the Hindi Typing Test by Guru Dayal Prajapat issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language, Hindi Teaching Scheme (Exam Wing), New Delhi, suffice is to observe that, that direction is not a positive direction, but an alternative direction and therefore the petitioners have not been mandatorily required to exempt the respondentGuru Dayal Prajapat from clearing the typing test. It is only that while allowing his original application, the Tribunal has left it open to the petitioner-railways to either provide him fourth chance to clear the English typist test as per his option or consider the said certificate of clearance of Hindi typing test issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language, Hindi Teaching Scheme (Exam Wing), New Delhi. If the petitioners do not choose to accept that certificate, which, in fact, they are contesting before this Court, then it would mean that they will be required to grant fourth chance to the respondent-Guru Dayal Prajapat too along with respondents Ram Kishore and Padam Singh Verma to appear in the typing test.
In view of aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgements passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of all the three respondents. We, however, reiterate that this fourth/additional chance which the respondents shall avail to pass the Typing Test, would be last one and no further chance shall be granted to them."
RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page Similarly, referring to the case of Sarwan Kumar Meena (supra), learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion contained therein:
"6. In view of the factual matrix of this case and the fact that no reversion order having been passed in the case of the applicant, who has only filed his date of appointment order and photocopy of the typing speed test of Clerks and even the respondents did not mention the same in their CA, we find that this OA has been filed without any cause of action at present. Hence, we direct the respondents to pass a detailed and speaking order, treating this OA as a representation from the applicant in the light of their own Railway Board letter dated 16.01.2017, according to which the persons, who have attained the age of 45 years may be exempted from typewriting test, within a period of 90 days of receipt of copy of this order."
Similarly, referring to the case of Smt. Vimlesh Chandra (supra), learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following portion contained therein:
15. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed by the respondents on compassionate grounds under the dying and harness rules. At the time of her appointment, the age of the applicant was 33 years. It is also not in dispute that the appointment order issued to the applicant contained a recital that the appointment of the applicant was temporary for a period of 2 years and within the said period, she had to qualify typing test. It is also not disputed that the applicant failed to qualify the typing test within the specified period of two years and within the extensions allowed to him from time to time. Pleadings on record show that the applicant was granted a number of attempts even after the expiry of two years to qualify the typing test.
16. The issues to be examined are whether the applicant was entitled to any age relaxation in terms of the instructions of the Department of Personnel, Government of India.
17. In the present case also, the appointment of the applicant was provisional with the condition that she has to pass typing test in Hindi or English within a period of 18 months of her appointment. Admittedly, as per D.O.P.T letter No. 14020/1/2014-Estt. (D) dated 22.4.2015 whereby exemption from passing the typing test for drawal of increments and confirmation would be granted to those who have completed 45 years of age. The above DOPT letter have been implemented by the Railway Board vide letter No. E(NG)1-2015/CFP/7 dated 16.01.2017.
18. In view of DOPT letter as well as Railway Board letter regarding exemption from passing the typewriting test after attaining the age of 45 years, we are of the opinion that applicant is entitled to the benefit of exemption of typewriting test after attaining the age of 45 years.
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page
19. Accordingly, O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.3.2017 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant in the light of Railway Board letter dated 16.01.2017 regarding exemption from passing the typewriting test after attaining the age of 45 years and pass reasoned and speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In case, on reconsideration, the applicant is found entitled to exemption from passing the typewriting test as above, she would be entitled to all consequential benefits as per rules. There is no order as to costs."
10. In the case of Shailesh Prakash Sharma (supra), fourth chance was allowed to the applicant therein because the applicant had not availed the third chance whereas in the present case of the applicant, the applicant has failed in all the three chances provided in the concerned regulation and he did not clear the typing test despite appearing in all the three chances.
Similarly, in the case of Sarwan Kumar Meena (supra), the OA was disposed of directing the respondents of that OA to pass a detailed and speaking order observing that the persons who have attained the age of 45 years may be exempted from typing test. In the present matter, the applicant has not attained the age of 45 years as on the date of passing of the impugned order, he was less than 40 years.
Similarly, in Vimlesh Chandra (supra) case, relaxation from passing the typing test was also allowed on the ground of attaining the age of 45 years as has been disclosed hereinabove. In the instant case, the applicant has not attained the age of 45 years. In that situation, no help can be extended to the applicant on the basis of ratio laid down in the case law relied upon by him.
11. In the instant case, the applicant was reverted back vide the impugned order. Opportunity of hearing was also given to him. Time and again, superior authority has remanded to the authority concerned that in case the candidates failed to clear the required typing qualification within two years by availing three chances, they shall be reverted on their original post after issuing the show cause notice. Reference may be taken of the instruction issued on RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page 15.03.2012 annexed as Annexure No. 4 of the counter affidavit. So far as pleading of the applicant that training was not imparted to him to enhance his capacity, is absolutely wrong. Annexure No 3 of the counter affidavit clearly reveals that training has been imparted to the applicant and he has participated in the same. Annexure No 3 is the attendance sheet of the training programme.
12. Since the applicant has not cleared the typing test even after availing all the three chances within two years, plea taken by the applicant to post him again on the post on which he was promoted is not acceptable. It is pertinent to mention here that if the third chance given to the applicant to participate in the typing test was beyond two years, then, on this ground itself, the impugned order will not become illegal because it was beneficial to the applicant as he got more time to prepare for the typing test. It is also notable that once the applicant had participated in all the three chances then later on he will be estopped to challenge the procedure.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, we do not find any cogent ground to quash the impugned order and therefore, the instant OA is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
9|Page