Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rakesh Kumar Meena vs M/O Railways on 22 December, 2025
RESERVED ON 18.12.2025.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
This is the 22nd day of December, 2025.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/01117/2019
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)
Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shyam Lal Meena, aged about 29
years, R/o Village Post Talawada, Tehsil Gangapurcity, District
Sawaimadhopur.
..........Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Chairman, Ministry of Railway
(Railway Board) Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) OPP NCR
Headquarters Near Railway Hospital Subedarganj, Allahabad
211011 (UP)
.................Respondents
Advocate for the Applicant: Shri R.K. Dixit
Advocate for the Respondents Shri K.K. Ojha
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order 10.2.2014 passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the candidature & debarring the petitioner from all RRB examination for Life Time (Annexure No.1 to compilation No. 1 of this petition).
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to issue offer of appointment in favour of petitioner on the post of Technicians Grade - III (Electric/TL Fitter) TRS, Category -4 against CEN No. 9/2010.
(iii) To grant such other and favourable relief (s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal/Court may deem fit and proper in the facts MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner".2
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-III Electric/TL Fitter/TRS-CAT-04 against CEN No. 9/2010. The applicant applied for the said post and appeared in the written examination conducted on 30.01.2011. The applicant successfully cleared the written examination and was thereafter called for document verification, which he attended on 03.03.2012. Subsequently, the applicant was served with a show cause notice dated 28.10.2013 by Respondent No. 2, alleging that, as per the report of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, the handwriting on the application form and that on the answer sheets/psycho sheets/verification sheets appeared to be of different persons. The applicant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. However, Respondent No. 2, vide Memorandum dated 10.02.2014, arbitrarily cancelled the candidature of the applicant and further imposed a lifetime debarment from appearing in all RRC/RRB examinations. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
3. We have heard Sri R.K Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents did not provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the applicant before imposing the severe penalty of lifetime debarment. No proper inquiry was conducted before issuing the order of cancellation and debarment. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order dated 10.02.2014 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any valid basis. The applicant had successfully cleared all stages of the selection process, including the written examination, document verification, and PET, and therefore cancellation of his MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA candidature is wholly unjustified. It is also argued that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is based only on the opinion of one Government handwriting expert. No attempt was made by the 3 respondents to obtain a second independent opinion from another Government laboratory. It is also argued that applicant's candidature cannot be cancelled solely on the basis of expert opinion as it is not supported/corroborated by any other material. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant had a legitimate expectation of being appointed after clearing all stages of selection. The respondents' actions have deprived the applicant of his rightful employment opportunity without any valid or lawful reason. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Alok Kumar Vs. Union of India and other in OA No. 232/2017 decided on 28.05.2025 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.
(ii) Vijay Pal and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2023 (6) ADJ 367.
It is also argued that applicant had earlier filed OA No. 280/2014 before the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal but it was returned to the applicant vide order dated 09.07.2019 for want of jurisdiction. Applicant has filed this OA without any delay.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the applicant's claim and argued that during the document verification, the handwriting and thumb impression of the applicant did not match with those taken during the written examination and PET. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that this mismatch creates serious doubts about whether the applicant himself appeared in the examination. Because of these discrepancies, the respondents concluded that cancelling the candidature and imposing lifetime debarment was justified to maintain the honesty and integrity of the recruitment process.
6. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
7. At the outset, it is pertinent to record that in the case of Vijay Pal (supra), O.A. filed before this Tribunal was dismissed. Applicants 4 of that OA challenged the order before the Hon'ble High Court in the writ jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while deciding the matter has held as under:-
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral citation No. 2023; AHC 106025-DB AFR Reserved Case No. Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 Petitioner; Vijay Pal and 3 others Respondents: Union of India and 3 others Counsel for the petitioner :ShyamalNarain, Ravi Prakash Bhatt.
Counsel for respondents: Vivek Kumar Rai, Manish Pandey, Rajnish Kumar Rai Hon'bleRajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Suneet Kumar. J.
1. Heard Shri ShyamalNarain, assisted by Shri Ravi Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Manish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Petitioner/original applicants, herein, are challenging the judgment and order dated 1 May 2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal'), whereby, their candidature for appointment on Group-D post has been rejected.
3. Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad (for short 'RRC'), invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to Group-D posts, i.e., Khalasi, Helper, Trackman, Peon, Parcel Porter, Safaiwala, etc. under North Central Railway, vide advertisement No. 01/2013, dated 27 July, 2013.
4. Petitioners appeared for the written test and were declared successful. The select list was published on the official website of R.R.C. on 15 December 2015. Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the Physical Examination Test (for short 'P.E.T'.), held between 10 March 2015 to 14 March 2015, finally, 2609 candidates, including the petitioners came to be declared successful in the P.E.T. Thereafter, all the candidates, including, petitioners were called for verification of the documents and medical examination. The select list published on the website on 15 December 2015, was accompanied by a note running in fourteen paragraphs. The paragraph relevant for the purposes of this case is extracted:
MANISH KUMAR "During various stages of scrutiny and Document Verification SRIVASTAVA 339 candidates found indulged in impersonation. It is roved following extant procedure that these candidates did not appeared inn the written examination but some one else appeared in place of these candidates or handwriting/thumb impression of 5 these candidates did not match in various documents. Hence apart from cancellation of candidature of the 339 candidates they are being debarred from all Railways examination through out Indian Railways as well as criminal case may also be registered against them on case to case basis."
5. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected with the remarks 'handwriting/thumb impression mismatch'.
6. Aggrieved, petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing original application, being O.A. No. 1789 of 2015, Vijay Pal and others versus Union of India and others, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 1 May 2018.
7. During pendency of the original application, an interim order dated 31 December 2015, was granted by the Tribunal directing the respondents to keep 23 Group-D posts vacant. The operative portion of the order is extracted:
"Having heard learned counsel for both sides, it appears that the grounds for rejection are stigmatic and therefore some opportunity ought to have been given to the applicants before rejecting their candidature by the respondents. Therefore, prima facie, a case for interim protection is made out. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant till the next date. If the facts are otherwise, the respondents are at liberty to file stay vacation application."
8. During pendency of the original application, petitioners came to be issued memorandum dated 23 January 2016, stating therein, that though the candidature of the petitioners was already cancelled, however, petitioners were called upon by the respondents to show cause as to why they may not be debarred from all future R.R.C./R.R.B. examinations, further, why criminal case may not be instituted against them for indulging in malpractice to procure Government job by fraud and misrepresentation.
9. The notice alleged that the petitioners had resorted to impersonation, further, it was alleged that there was mismatch in the handwriting, and/or, thumb impression of the candidates. In other words, allegation against the petitioners was that they have resorted, by securing the services of someone else, in the written test on their behalf. The allegation levelled in the two memorandums of the same date is extracted:
"I. As confirmed by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hand writing on the Application Form and that on answer sheet (OMR)/verification sheets are of different person
(s). It has been established that the candidate did not appear himself in the written examination or PET examination and rather somebody else appeared in the same on his behalf, which is a case of impersonation, a malpractice and an offence.
II. As you are aware bio-metrics attendance were obtained during each phase of examination. It is to bring into your notice that your thumb impression during document verification did not match with written and PET examination. It means someone else MANISH KUMAR had appeared in written and PET examination impersonating SRIVASTAVA your candidature."
10. Petitioners filed their objections to the show cause notice/memorandum denying the allegations of impersonation or 6 mismatch in handwriting, and/or, thumb impression. The respondent- authority vide order dated 31 March 2016, rejected the objection stating that the reply submitted by the petitioners were not found satisfactory. Consequently, petitioners were debarred from taking future R.R.B./R.R.C. examinations for life.
11. Aggrieved, petitioners through an amendment application challenged the memorandum dated 22 January 2016 and the debarment order dated 31 March 2016.
12. The learned Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the counsels for the respective parties, by the impugned order, partly allowed the original application of the petitioners. The impugned orders to the extent debarring the petitioners from future R.R.B/R.R.C. examinations for life was set aside. The decision of the respondents, however, cancelling the candidature of the petitioners was not interfered with.
13. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus:
"24. In the circumstances, following the decision taken in the case of Santosh Kumar Tiwari (supra) to this case, we also come to the conclusion that from the facts and circumstances of the case based on the materials on record and as discussed in para 22, the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting, without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case. However, there is violation of the instructions of the examination as per the advertisement No. 1/2023, for which there is mismatch of handwriting or mismatch of thumb impression for the applicants and these mismatches have not been explained satisfactorily as the explanation in one applicant's explanation/reply at Annexure A-10 of the OA reveals. In fact, there are such violations as mentioned in the Suppl. Affidavit filed by the applicants. Further, no specific reason has been indicated in the show cause notice or impugned order in support of the allegation of impersonation against any of the applicants. Hence, taking into accounts the facts of the case, we consider the cancellation of the candidature of the applicants for the advertisement No. 1/2013 to be just and proper. But the decision of the respondents to debar some of the applicants for all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is not at all justified based on the materials on record. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2016, debarring the applicants from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs is set aside and quashed. However, we uphold the decision/orders of the respondent No. 2 to cancel the candidature of the applicants for the examination pertaining to the advertisement No. 1/2013. Respondent No. 2 is directed to modify the penal action against the applicants accordingly. The interim orders in the case to keep 23 posts vacant in OA No. 1789/2015 and one post vacant in OA No. 73/2016 are vacated and if some of the applicants have appeared MANISH KUMAR in subsequent examinations provisionally by virtue of the interim SRIVASTAVA orders, their candidature shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 as per the rules applicable for the said examination in view of the quashing of the punishment of debarment from all examinations of RRCs/RRBs as per this order.7
25. For the OA No. 73/2016, the allegation against the applicant is for mismatch of handwriting as verified by the GEQD like the case of the applicant No. 1 in the OA No. 1789/2015. The reply furnished to the show cause notice and enclosed at Annexure SA-2 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed b the applicant, does not give any convincing explanation for mismatch of handwriting. Hence, the finding as at para 24 will also be applicable for the OA No. 73/2016.
26. Before we part with the case, we notice that there appears to be no Rule or Regulation laying down the procedure to be followed by the RRC/RRB, in situations where there are discrepancies for a candidate like mismatch of handwriting or thumb impression or signature etc. or allegation of impersonation in the examination, as no such Rule/Regulation has been produced before us in this case. The respondents may consider to put in place an appropriate Rule/Regulation to deal with such situations in a just and fair manner as per the provision of law."
14. The coordinate Bench of this Court, on filing of the writ petition by the petitioners, passed an interim order dated 1 October 2018, staying the impugned order of the Tribunal until further orders and directed the respondents to keep 23 posts vacant and that would abide by the out come of the writ petition. The operative portion of the interim order is extracted:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, until further orders, the impugned order date 01.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1789/2015 shall remain stayed and the respondents are directed to keep 23 posts vacant."
15. Learned counsel for the respondents, on specific query, admits that the respondent-Railways have not filed writ petition challenging the order of the learned Tribunal, insofar as, the impugned order recorded a categorical finding with regard to impersonation that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants, since the allegation comprised of only mismatch of thumb impression or handwriting without any mismatch of the signature of the applicants. In case of impersonation, the mismatch in signature would have been detected also. The mismatch of signature is not reported or detected for any of the applicants in this case...'
16. In the aforenoted backdrop, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that insofar as the allegation of impersonation levelled against the petitioners was held unworthy of belief by the learned Tribunal, rather, the allegation of impersonation was specifically rejected. The finding to that effect has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents.
17. It is, therefore, urged that after returning a categorical finding with regard to impersonation being unbelievable, Tribunal committed an error in upholding the decision of the respondents to cancel the candidature of the petitioners at the examination. In other words, it is submitted that the petitioners had appeared for the examination and MANISH KUMAR are entitled to appointment. In the circumstances, the question of SRIVASTAVA mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression would not arise.
18. It is further submitted that the categorical finding recorded by the Tribunal that '... the respondents have not been able to establish the allegation of impersonation against the applicants...' is contradictory 8 for the reason that mismatch of handwriting, or, thumb impression, is possible in the event of impersonation.
19. It is further urged that it can safely be said that all the petitioners stand totally exonerated of the main charge of impersonation which was the substance and basis of the show cause notice/memorandum issued to them. It is further submitted that the candidature of the petitioners came to be cancelled prior to the issue of show cause notice/memorandum, accordingly, there is an element of pre- determination of mind of the respondent-Railways against the petitioners. The memorandum was confined to debarment from all future examinations for resorting to impersonation.
20. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is not being disputed that the petitioners herein were not confronted with the expert opinion or of the opinion of the Government Examiner for Questionable Documents (GEQD) . It is admitted that on the allegations based on the opinion of the expert, memorandum was served upon the petitioners to show cause with regard to their debarment and with not regarding the cancellation of their candidature in the examination. In other words, insofar as, cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners, was final as the memorandum was confined with their future debarment in RRB/RRC examinations. It is further stated that after considering the reply of the petitioners, the candidates came to be debarred. The candidature of the petitioners was cancelled due to the acts of irregularities/omissions noted in the impugned order. It is, however, not denied that material relied upon in non-suiting the petitioners, i.e., the expert opinion was not supplied to the petitioners, nor, filed before this Court or the Tribunal. In other words, the orders of cancellation of candidature came to be passed behind the back of the petitioners while cancelling their candidature, thereafter, upon notice, petitioners were debarred for all future RRB examinations.
21. It is not the case of the respondent-Railways that the show cause notice/memorandum was supported by any material, including, the opinion of the handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting expert was not supplied in support of the memorandum to justify the allegation of mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on the application form or on the subsequent papers pertaining to Written Examination/P.E.T. undertaken by the petitioners. The entire exercise was undertaken by the Railways behind the back of the petitioners.
22. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the respondents were justified on the available materials on record to hold petitioners guilty of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression on various documents.
23. In Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others1, this Court observed that handwriting expert opinion is at best an opinion, which is not conclusive proof of mismatch of handwriting or impersonation. Expert opinion has been considered to be of very weak nature, which requires corroboration from other material facts pertaining to the allegation.
24. This Court held as follows:
"Evidence of an expert is only an opinion. Expert evidence is MANISH KUMAR only a piece of evidence and external evidence. It has to be SRIVASTAVA considered along with other pieces of evidence. Which would be the main evidence and with is the corroborative one depends upon the facts of each case. An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the Court a scientific opinion which is likely to be outside 9 the experience and knowledge of a Judge. This kind of testimony, however, has been considered to be of very weak nature and expert is usually required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions. It is quite often surprising to see with what facility, and to what extent, their views would be made to correspond with the wishes and interests of the parties who call them."
25. The decision of the respondent is based on the expert opinion alone to establish guilt of impersonation, and/or, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression without affording opportunity or confronting the petitioners with the material/opinion. Had it been so, the petitioners in their defence could also have obtained an opinion of the expert to confront the Railways. The impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners could not have been sustained on the opinion of handwriting expert.
26. In Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. Union of India and others2, this Court in similar facts set aside the cancellation of the candidature and their debarment for three years from appearing in any examination of the Commission on the strength of an expert opinion.
"23. In the facts of the present case, despite allegation made in the notice dated 5.8.2015 about thumb impression, signatures and handwriting having not tallied, the respondents have confined their conclusion to the opinion of the handwriting expert. Such opinion cannot be construed as being conclusive.
24. In the present case not only the petitioners have been denied appointment but they are also debarred from appearing in any examination conducted by the Commission for three years. Such order of Commission is clearly stigmatic in nature. The order under challenge carries civil consequences also. Such order cannot be sustained merely on the strength of handwriting report, nature of which remains that of an opinion, and cannot be construed as conclusive.
25. The report of CFSL based upon handwriting expert's opinion, moreover, has not been furnished to the petitioners. Petitioners consequently had no opportunity to controvert it."
27. The decision rendered in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), was carried intra court appeal in Union of India and others vs. Ran Vijay Singh and others3, Division Bench observed as follows:
"At this juncture, we would also like to state that it is not the case of the appellant-respondents that the process of selection suffers from mass-irregularity, but of unfair practices adopted by certain individuals.
Looking to this background also, we are of the considered opinion that while cancelling examination of the respondent- petitioners and further debarring him for three consecutive examinations the appellant should have supplied a copy of the opinion given by the handwriting expert. Non-supply of that is in violation of principles of natural justice."
28. The aforenoted authorities came to be followed by the Division Bench in Bhupendra Singh vs. Union of India and anothers4, the MANISH KUMAR relevant part of the order is extracted:
SRIVASTAVA "In both Ran Vijay Singh and Tulasi Ram Prajapati, the learned Judge found that the candidature of the petitioners could not have been unilaterally annulled without granting them an 10 opportunity to rebut the findings recorded by the expert. These principles are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the order is not stigmatic and there is no violation of Article 311 of the Constitution do not merit consideration since principles of natural justice would clearly apply in all situations where a person is visited with serious civil consequences. Once the name of the petitioner stood included in the select list, his removal from the same on the allegation of impersonation must necessarily have been preceded by the issuance of a notice or at least an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to establish that the adverse material which was relied upon by the respondents was not liable to be accepted. It is well settled that the opinion of an expert is not conclusive and remains just that, namely, an opinion."
29. The respondents in the given facts of the case at hand were expected to confront the petitioners with the material relied upon against them, particularly, when the petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any further examination conducted by the RRB/RRC and their candidature was cancelled for the examination on mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression.
30. The opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record. The learned Tribunal has discarded the theory of impersonation setup by the respondent-Railways, then in that event, mismatch of handwriting/thumb impression of the petitioners becomes unsustainable, unless supported by any other material or evidence that petitioners have not appeared in the examination or have not filled the application form in their handwriting.
31. The respondent-Railways, in their counter affidavit, have not denied that at all stages of the examination, i.e., Written Test and P.E.T., thumb impression and signatures of the candidates was taken and the entire process was video-graphed. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that though the petitioners had appeared for the examination, yet at the same time, there was mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression.
32. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners, herein, had not carried the relevant documents, including, identity card to the examination centre or had not participated in the P.E.T./Medical Examination.
33. In the circumstances, it cannot be said in absence of any other material available with the Railways, that it is a case of mismatch in handwriting/thumb impression. The inference of the Railways is based on an opinion without being supported by any other material, i.e., the petitioners had not appeared at different stages of the selection process.
34. In service jurisprudence, though Evidence Act is not applicable, the charge is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but on the principle of preponderance of probability, based on some material evidence against the petitioners. It is not a case of disciplinary proceedings, neither, it is a case set up by the Railways, that there was large scale irregularities in the examination process, only few MANISH KUMAR candidates have been picked-up and their selections cancelled merely SRIVASTAVA on an opinion obtained behind the back of the petitioners without confronting the petitioners with the incriminating material.
1135. The respondent's action otherwise is not inconformity with the principles of natural justice, accordingly, the impugned order dated 1 May 2018, being stigmatic cannot be sustained.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith.
37. It is clarified that no other ground or point was pressed by the counsels for the respective parties.
38. No cost.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023".
It is noteworthy to mention here that SLP (C) No. 24965/2023 filed against the decision of Hon'ble High Court passed in aforesaid Vijay Pal (supra) case has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dated 09.12.2024, thus, the order of the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality.
8. Before dealing with the other issues, it will also be appropriate to quote paras 9 to 14 of the Alok Kumar (supra) case, which are as follows:-
"9. In the instant case, as is evident from the records, the applicant had also applied against the advertisement No. 1/2013 issued on 27.07.2013. The applicant's candidature was also cancelled due to mismatch of thumb impression. Show cause notice was issued only in respect of debarment from future employment. No supporting evidence has been collected by the respondents to affirm the opinion regarding mismatch of thumb impression. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the identical circumstances for the same advertisement has adjudicated upon a case vide Writ A No. 21096 of 2018 titled Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs Union of India and 3 others wherein the candidates' candidature were also cancelled by the respondents and they were debarred from future employment but Hon'ble High Court has set aside the order passed by the respondents against those candidates. Hon'ble High Court also directed the respondents to issue appointment letter in respect of those candidates. Respondents Union of India approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India through SLP No. 24965 of 2023 which was also dismissed. The case of the present applicant is identical to the case of Vijay Pal (supra) and thus on close analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the facts and circumstances of the case of Vijay Pal (supra), we are of the considered view that the present OA is also liable to be allowed in line with Vijay Pal (supra) case and the impugned order passed against the applicant cancelling his candidature and debarring him from future employment is also liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. As far as issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on Group D post is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that since in the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court after setting MANISH KUMAR aside the order passed by the Triunal in the OA , had directed the respondents SRIVASTAVA to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicants of that OA, thus the applicant herein is also entitled for appointment against the advertisement No. 01/2013. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that although in the Vijay Pal (supra) case, the respondents were directed to keep the 23 posts vacant till 12 the next date and no such interim protection has been granted in the present matter, yet, the applicant, on setting aside the impugned order, cannot be kept in lurch or he cannot be left remediless. Thus, argued to issue direction to the respondent to give appointment to the applicant against the vacant posts and if no posts are vacant, direction be issued to create supernumerary post and to accommodate the applicant till the regular vacancy is made available.
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents referring to the letter dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Prayagraj argued that total vacancy advertised through the advertisement no. 01/2013 were 2691 and out of them 2531 vacancies have been filled up. There were remaining 160 posts. It was also argued that besides the post kept reserved in compliance of the direction given by the Court / Tribunals, other vacant posts were carry forwarded to the next recruitment process and thus no vacancy is available as on date and no direction could be given to the respondents to create supernumerary post.
12. We have also analyzed the situation as argued by the learned counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that when the impugned order is set aside in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Vijay Pal (supra) case which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the applicant cannot be left without a remedy. The instant case of the applicant is an extraordinary situation and it is needless to reiterate that such extraordinary situations require extraordinary solutions. Thus, to meet the end of justice and in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant against the advertisement no. 01/2013 and grant him appointment. If no vacancy is available, a supernumerary post may be created and the applicant be accommodated thereon till a regular vacancy is available.
13. Further, as regards to the case law viz. S.S. Balu (supra) relied upon by the respondents, we have also carefully perused the aforesaid judgment and are of the opinion that there are much distinguishable facts between the present case and the facts of the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The ratio laid in the case of SS Balu (supra) cannot be applied to the present matter as the applicant has approached before this Tribunal timely and there is no delay in challenging the impugned orders and grounds on which the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled were not found sustainable by the Hon'ble High Court in Vijay Pal (supra) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to grant appointment to the applicant against the advertisement no. 01/2013. If no vacancy is available at present, a supernumerary post be created and the applicant be accommodated thereon till a regular vacancy is made available. This exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail".
9. This Tribunal in para 9 of Ashish Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 03.11.2025 in OA No. 562 of 2017 has held as under:-
"9. We are of the opinion that the Original Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2017 is hereby quashed. The MANISH KUMAR respondents/competent authority are directed to reconsider the case of SRIVASTAVA the applicant by obtaining expert opinion of both handwriting and biometric experts with respect to the documents pertaining to the written examination and the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), as referred to in the impugned order. The entire exercise shall be 13 completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the outcome thereof shall be intimated to the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law".
10. In the instant case, the records show that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of Technician Grade III Electric/TL Fitter/TRS-CAT-04 under the relevant advertisement against the CEN No. 9/2010. His candidature was cancelled on the ground of mismatch of thumb impression. A show-cause notice was issued to him, and he also submitted his reply. However, the respondents did not collect any independent or reliable evidence to support the allegation of mismatch, except relying on a handwriting expert's report. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in an identical matter (Writ-A No. 21096 of 2018, Vijay Pal and 22 others vs. Union of India and others), has set aside the similar orders of cancellation of candidature and debarment. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the respondents to issue appointment letters to those candidates. The Union of India challenged that judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 24965 of 2023, but the SLP was dismissed. Since the facts of the present case are identical to the case of Vijay Pal (supra) and impugned order is passed only on the basis of expert opinion, there is no other material to corroborate the expert opinion, thus, after carefully examining the entire circumstances, we are of the firm view that this Original Application also deserves to be allowed in the same manner because ratio laid down in Vijay Pal (supra) cannot be delivered only on this ground that present matter relates to different advertisement. Benefit which has been allowed in the case of Vijay Pal (supra) is extendable in the present matter. Consequently, the impugned order cancelling the applicant's candidature and debarring him from future employment is liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. As far as issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA petitioner on Technician Grade III against the CEN No. 09/2010 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Hon'ble High Court, in similar circumstances, has set aside the Tribunal's 14 order and ordered the respondents to issue appointment letters to the candidates in that case. Therefore, the applicant in this case should also be given appointment to the post of Technician Grade III. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that although in the Vijay Pal (supra) case, the respondents were directed to keep the 23 posts vacant till the next date and no such interim protection has been granted in the present matter, yet, the applicant, on setting aside the impugned order, cannot be kept in lurch or he cannot be left remediless. It is also argued that if ratio laid down in Ran Vijay (supra) case is followed then also on obtaining of fresh expert report if mismatch is not found ultimately appointment will be made. Thus, argued to issue direction to the respondent to give appointment to the applicant against the vacant posts and if no posts are vacant, direction be issued to create supernumerary post and to accommodate the applicant till the regular vacancy is made available.
12. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that there is no vacancy available now for the concerned post. He submitted that the recruitment process was completed strictly as per the number of posts mentioned in the Employment Notice. The panel was prepared only for the sanctioned posts, and the entire selection process is now closed. It is further argued that the applicant's candidature was rejected due to impersonation and mismatch of biometric data. Therefore, he cannot now be considered for appointment, especially when no vacancy exists. The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the applicant has no right to claim appointment without a clear vacancy, and the Tribunal cannot direct them to create a supernumerary post only for him.
13. We have also analyzed the situation as argued by the learned counsel for both the parties and are of the opinion that when the impugned order is set aside in view of the law laid down by the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Hon'ble High Court in Vijay Pal (supra) case which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the applicant cannot be left without a remedy. The instant case of the applicant is an extraordinary 15 situation and it is needless to reiterate that such extraordinary situations require extraordinary solutions. Thus, to meet the end of justice and in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III and grant him appointment.
14. Regarding the judgment in Ashish Kumar (supra) cited by the respondents, we have examined it carefully. Applicant's case is identical to the case of Vijay Pal (supra) and it is being allowed in light of the law laid down in Vijai Pal (supra) case, thus, no any other direction is needed in light of the Ran Vijay (supra).
15. In view of the above discussion, the present Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.02.2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give the applicant an appointment to the post of Technician Grade-III Electric/TL Fitter/TRS-CAT-04. This entire exercise must be completed within four months from the date the respondents receive a certified copy of this order. All connected MAs are disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash-VII)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA