Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Kamaldeep Meena vs M/O Railways on 28 September, 2022
| | | CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 83/2020 Order reserved on: 21.09.2022 Date of order: Z8:23.202 > CORAM: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J) Kamaldeep Meena s/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, r/o Dhani Kaythawali, Tan-amai, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur. Group-D 9636287412. Applicant has applied for the post of Group-D in RRB Ajmer. .... Applicant (By Adv: Shri B.K. Jatti) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment Board through its Chairman, 2010, Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305028. 2. Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305028. 3. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell North West Railway, 1° Floor, Railway Staff Rest House, Power House Road, Jaipur-302006 ...Respondents (By Adv: Shri J.S. Rathore) ORDER Per : Smt. Hina P. Shah, 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: -
"8.1 That by a suitable writ/order or the directions 8.2 8.3 8.4 the impugned letter dated 19/3/2019 be quashed and set aside.
That by a suitable writ/order or the directions the respondents be directed to allow the applicant to rectify the mistakes committed in the application form for recruitment under the notification no. 2/2018 dated 10/2/2018.
That by a suitable writ/order the directions the respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant against the ST Category instead of SC category and further directed to allow him appointment if found fit.
Any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of humble applicant."
2.a) The case of the Applicant is that the Respondents had issued an advertisement no. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018 for several posts in Level-1 of 7" CPC Pay Matrix and Applicant who belongs to ST category had applied for the same by E-Mitra by way of filling On-Line form as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination on 12.12.2018 and after qualifying the said examination, he appeared for physical test. In the result declared of written st e 3 QA No, 33/2020 examination, he secured 66.87753 marks and the cut- off marks for ST category was 60.62978 and cut-off marks for Schedule Caste (SC) category was 63.37549. He was issued a call letter on 05.03.2019 for PET test and in that call letter his category was shown as SC instead of Schedule Tribe (ST). When he checked his application form he came to know that even the date of issuance has wrongly been mentioned as 06.03.2016 instead of 06.03.2017. Also the issuing authority was filled as Tehsildar instead of SDO which was only due to bonafide human error and that he belongs to a backward area and owing to pressure of application form and congestion on server.
2.b) As soon as the error came to the knowledge of the Applicant he made an application to the authorities dated 18.03.2019 and prayed for correction. The Respondents replied the same vide their letter dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure A/1) and denied from any correction. Aggrieved by the arbitrary act of the Respondents, he approached the Hon''ble High Court and filed SB CWP No. 5861/2019 for redressal of his grievances. As per the order dated 29.03.2019, the Hon''ble High Court issued directions to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in the PET in ST category and to keep one post vacant in ST category in Gr.-D posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 02/2018.
2.c) Accordingly, Applicant appeared in the PET test and cleared the same. Inspite of High Court directions to consider the candidature of the Applicant under ST category still the Applicant was shown as successful under SC category instead of ST category. The Respondents have declared the cut-off marks for different categories and against the SC category, the cut-off marks have been shown as 66.9481 and against the ST category, the cut-off marks is shown as 66.08329. Respondents issued call letter to the Applicant for document verification, but in the call letter the category is shown as SC category. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, Applicant has approached the Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
3. This Tribunal vide its order dated 06.02.2020 had issued notice to the Respondents and had passing interim order wherein Respondents were directed to keep one post vacant of Group-D under the advertisement in Level -1 of 7 CPC Pay Matrix under ST category for the Applicant and the said interim relief continued till date.
2 QA No. 83/20204.a) Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed their reply raising preliminary objection that the Applicant has impleaded UOI, M/o Railways, RRB through its Chairman. In fact, UOI or M/o Railways can be represented through its Secretary/Chairman while RRB can be represented through its Chairman and Chairman, RRB is much lower functionary under jit. Thus the present Original Application is not maintainable under this ground itself and deserves to be dismissed.
4.b) On merits, Respondents stated that as per para 15.2 of the Notification, it is clear that the candidates can modify their applications well before the closing date i.e. 12.03.2018 upto 23.59 hrs and the link 'Modify Application Link' for the said purpose as per para 15.2
(d) was active only by that date and time. Also as per General Instructions para 2, Eligibility of the candidates will be considered only on the strength of the information furnished in the ONLINE Application. Candidates need NOT send printouts of application or Certificates or copies to RRBs concerned by post. If at any stage of recruitment or thereafter, it is found that any information furnished by the candidate in his/her application is false/incorrect or the candidate has suppressed any relevant information or the candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post(s), his/her candidature will be rejected forthwith.
SSS Ia
4.c) Admittedly, Applicant failed to follow the instructions rather he submitted the application form dated 18.03.2019. In fact, the M/o Railways had decided that the conduct of PET, document verification, medical examination and publishing of panel for Level-1 post shall be carried out by RRC of respective zonal Railways.
Accordingly, candidates were shortlisted for PET. Though Annexure A/1 pertains to Respondent no. 1 & 2 , however in view of Annexure-R/1, consideration of the grievance of the Applicant. at the stage of document verification and final panel can only be done by Respondent No. 3. Thus Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 cannot consider the grievances of the Applicant and pass any orders.
4.d) Respondent No. 3 stated that the Applicant himself did not check the information of the on-line form though told by E-Mitra and thus as he himself is negligent and responsible for not taking the print out of on-line application form, after reading it, he could have corrected the errors by modifying the application in view of clause 15.2 of the Notification. As per the pleading of the Applicant himself he has made three errors in the application form and pleaded that it is due to bonafide human error owing to pressure of application form and congestion of server which factually cannot be accepted.
Z OA No. 83/2020 As per Hon'ble High Court directions, Applicant was allowed to participate in PET, otherwise the candidature of the Applicant was liable to be cancelled for giving wrong details/information and would not be entitled to participate in PET. Case of Applicant cannot be said to be similar to that of Kavita Chowdhary V/s. Registrar (Exam) in D.B.C.S.A. (W) No. 1700/2017 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur on 01.11.2017 and to the case of Shri Devanand Panwar Vs. U.O.1. & Ors. O.A. No. 800/2015 decided by this Bench of the Tribunal on 10.04.2018, as the mistakes of the Applicant cannot be said to be that of human error, rather it is the Applicant who was negligent and reluctant to state that he was himself careless instead he is shifting liability on E-Mitra Operator. Thus negligence of the Applicant cannot be said to be bonafide instead it is malafideness on part of the Applicant and thus present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Applicant has filed a Rejoinder denying the submissions of the Respondents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the pleadings as well as the judgements cited by the parties.
8QO. 202
7. | The Applicant and the Respondents reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
8. . The question which requires to be considered is whether the candidature of the Applicant ought to have been cancelled on the ground of human error/ bonafide mistake made in the application form and when he has already been protected by the interim directions and when no third party rights are affected.
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that Applicant being an ST candidate had applied on-line through E-Mitra for Level-1 post of 7 Pay Matrix in pursuance to the notification No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018 for various posts in Railways and after fulfilling the criteria as required. He was given a call letter and had appeared in the written examination and had passed in the same and secured 66.87753 marks. He was issued a Call letter to appear for PET examination on 05.03.2019 and in the said call letter he came to know that he has entered wrong category as he belongs to ST but his category in call letter is shown as SC. He has also committed error in date of issuance of certificate as 06.03.2016 instead of 06.03.2017 and also ho A No. 202 in case of issuing authority instead of SDO he has filled as Tehsildar.
10. We have noticed that the Applicant immediately made an application dated 18.03.2019 to the authorities to allow him to correct the form. As per letter dated 19.03.2019 (Annexure-A/1) Applicant was not allowed 'to make any correction. Applicant approached Hon'ble High Court being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in SBCWP No. 5861/2019 for redressal of his grievances and Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 29.03.2019 allowed the Petitioner to participate in PET under ST category under the process of recruitment to Group-D posts pursuant to Notification No. 02/2018. Further one post was ordered to keep vacant till further orders of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Applicant participated in PET and was declared as qualified but his category was shown as SC in the result so declared.
11. It is further noticed that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure-A/12) the WP was dismissed on the ground that the same is net maintainable and petitioner was free to avail alternate remedy provided to him under law. In the meantime, the Applicant was called for document verification on 11.02.2020 as per Annexure-A/2, but his category was shown as SC. Thus being aggrieved he has 10 approached this Tribunal seeking suitable direction for rectifying the mistakes committed in his application form that the said mistakes are bonafide and typographical.
42. After going through the case of the Applicant, we see that the stand taken by the Respondents is that as per provisions contained in para 2 of the CEN 02/2018 under Important Instructions , which reads as under :
"2, Eligibility of the candidates will be considered only on the strength of the information furnished in the ONLINE Application. Candidates need NOT send printouts of application or Certificates or copies to RRBs concerned by post. If at any stage of recruitment or thereafter, it is found that any information furnished by the candidate in his/her application is false/incorrect oF the candidate has suppressed any relevant information or the candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post(s), his/her candidature will be rejected forthwith."
Also as per para 15.2 of the said Notification, there was a specific clause mentioned for modification of Application and the procedure for said modification was also mentioned along with the link 'Modify Application' on the home page of the Online registration Portal. But we find that though the operator of E-Mitra has asked the Applicant to receive online application form after some time as admitted by Applicant himself he failed to check the information mentioned in the application form.
Thus as per Respondents the act of the Applicant clearly gen 1 QA No, 83/2020 shows himself as negligent and guilty of committing error as there was No question of any bonafide human error aS pleaded by the Applicant.
43. As it is seen the Applicant belongs to SC Category and he committed an error in filling the application form and made three mistakes in doing so. Firstly he wrongly filled category aS SC instead of ST. Secondly the date of issuance of Certificate aiso was wrongly filled as 96.03.2016 instead of 06.03.2017. Thirdly the authority of issuance of Certificate was S.D.O. but was wrongly mentioned as Tasildar. It is clear that it is a bonafide mistake and 4 human error has been committed by him.
14. Itis trite law that even in administrative matters, if decision adversely affects a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provisions for giving an opportunity, the principles of natural justice is inbuilt.
Though it is true that in the notification it is clearly mentioned that the candidates are required to be cautious in filling online applications and = any mistake/error would debar such applications, but due to the bonafide mistake on part of the Applicant which he tried to rectify the same on receipt of Call letter for PET and permission was granted by Hon'ble High Court for ~ appearing in the said test and also one post of ST 12 QA No. 83/2020 category was allowed to be kept vacant in the said notification. Applicant has thereafter appeared for PET and was declared as successful. Thereafter, he was called for document verification on 11.02.2020 but his in mentioned as SC instead of ST.
15. itis clear that while filling the on-line form, human etely ruled out and, therefore, the A candidate whose marks are above cut off ++ deserves an opportunity before his nly on some error. As such, in the bonafide mistake committed by the present case, the Applicant in filling the application form deserves to be -ectified/correcte and he should be allowed to rectify the error: Also in the present case no third party fected as the Applicant is having interim yA protection in his favour vide order dated 06.02.2020 rein one post under the advertisement is kept
46. It ig clear that a human error can be rectified provided no third party right is affected and we are in agreement with the judgements cited by the Applicant in case of Kavita Choudhary (supra) wherein it has been held that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party should be allowed to be cured and 13 QA No, 83/2020 rectification of a mistake would cause no prejudice Applicant has also relied on the judgement of Devanand Panwar (supra) as well as of Praveen Kumar V/s. UOI & Ors. in O.A. No. 417/2013 decided by this Tribunal on 45.11.2021 which covers the issue in question.
17. In view of the observations made above, the action for interference and they are directed to permit the Applicant to rectify the mistakes consider his case category instead of SC category and further nt to the Applicant if found fit in further n under the notification No. 02/2018 e said exercise be carried out months of the receipt of the certified copy ; accordingly, the Original Application is Nh allowed. NO gosts. ;
y
---- -
cmina P. shah)
- jember r() (Dinesh Sharma) Member (A) phew