Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Mriduranjan vs Rrc (E Railway) on 4 December, 2018
I
-"1,
>*-
1 0A1104/2012
/
/ CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
/
/
KOLKATA BENCH
/
7 Date of Order; \\
<v.- / OA 1104/2012
/
I Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Judicial Member
/ Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
/
rv
! /
Shri Mriduranjan,
Roll No. 41114528, I
Son of Late Ram Bachchan Prasad Singh,- t
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at Shishuranjan,
t
Karyananad Nagar, Near Bidyut Colony,
Purani Bazar, Lakhisaraj (Bihar), i
Pin-811311.
... Applicant.
Versus
1. Union of the India
Through the^General Manager
Eastern Rail^ay^tf$ >v
KolkataV'700001.
/ O
2 /T-hie Chaipwro,\ y s 4
.ell. %
l mkat&mss: C
3
3.(Jhe Assi^a'nt/Rer^phn>el^fficer, ,
yReau|m^4^^;|.y)F^Gr«.tment G'ell
' Ko ikifay7-00001.
7 Respondents.
'<5
For the Applicant(s) : sMr^*A:8hakraborty
For the Respondent(s): Mr. AX-GuTSsT^
ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee. Administrative Member:
■ ■ Aggrieved with the rejection of his candidature for the post of Group-
D in response to Employment Notice No. 0106, the applicant has approached the Tribunal paying for the following relief:
"8.(a) Action of the respondents by not including the name of the applicant in the list of eligible candidates is not tenable in the eye of law and therefore the decision may be quashed.
(b) An order do issue directing the respondents to recommend the name of the applicant for his appointment in Group-D post in the Eastern Railway.
■Hf' 7 2 0A1104/2012
(c) An order do issue directing the respondents to produce the verification report of candidates before the Hon'ble Tribunal so that conscionable justice may be feyiy administered."
.7
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for both parties. Perused pleadings and documents on record.
'*
3. The case of the applicant, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel, is that I the applicant had applied in response to Employment Notice No. 0106 inviting applications for formation of panel for filling up various categories of Group-D posts. The applicant appeared in the Written and Physical Efficiency Tests respectively and, although the applicant was purportedly successful in such tests^iS^^ on the alleged ground that para 6 of th^applidSSoS^fe^as not/when by the candidate.
%
yx 'tl mjri i" jr 4** .
f
The applicant, thereafter, obtain^jnfo™^o'n* undejf Right to Information Act, 2005, which re\Saled of re®tion was that he did iX V/7/|\v0f not write in his OMR^sheet th^paragraph^ich wasWen in paragraph 3 mf V / (thre'e) of the question'/booklet and thatsthe^earlie/ cause of rejection \ \ Sf NX / / mentioned erroneously^inNoffice^^der<^fed^10/ll2.2008 was regretted.
Thereafter, a. series of litigatfens^followed'^with candidates, including the f present applicant, having filed different O.As. before the CAT, Kolkata Bench challenging the action of Respondents in rejecting their candidature i and; finally, with reference to directions of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P.C.T: No. 45/2009, the Tribunal passed an order dated 09.04.2010 in O.A. 706/2009 and other O.As. in which the Tribunal had held that the rejection of candidature of applicants was unreasonable and arbitrary and quashed such rejection order. As the Tribunal had observed that the rejection of candidature of applicant is not sustainable, the 25 ■ '"~V < •
- y V1 3 0A1104/2012 f candidature of the applicant cannot be rejected on the self same grounds i and, accordingly, the applicant had approached the Tribunal for relief.
The applicant, inter alia, has advanced the following grounds in support of his claim:
(a) That, when the Tribunal had already observed while disposing of the case of the applicant and others, that the rejection of the candidature of the applicant is not sustainable, the candidature of the applicant cannot be rejected on the self same grounds.
(b) That, there was no allegation of impersonation against him.
4, Per contra, Respondents bave.argued as follows:
That the Respondeqt^fh^fties^fidiifs^u&d^an Employment Notice i E.N.No. 0106 and a" proVisiona'lfpart| paTOkconsistingiOf 3820 candidates i «! published by/R^-EF|Sn^p^9^|ng aggnfeved I;
was some of the !
• r- ^ \
candidates filed DMs. agal^sC^^M&rt^a.Uthoriiips f;...
and_ the Tribunal disposed of the\sCaici OAl^of ffQ&Zbw'on 20:081009 with certain i directions on the Rfespon^entsauthorities. 'Being^ggrieved with the orders \ <xy y i of the Tribunal, a group^e^an^lled Jcari(3fdates^^pproached the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta by filing^WRCT-No^TS^OOO, which was disposed of by quashing the order of CAT, Kolkata dated 20.08.2009 and directing r the CAT, Kolkata to rehear the matter after writ petitioners were arrayed as parties. O.A. 706/2009 along with other O.As. and M.As. were finally i-
disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated 09.04.2010 in which the i :
•I-' rejection orders in individual cases stood quashed and the candidature of applicant candidates were directed to be reconsidered from the stage from where it was stopped. The Respondents were also accorded' liberty to scrutinize on their own the rejection of 2.6 lakh candidates (as admitted by the Respondent authorities) and, thereafter, upon completion of scrutiny, if 1 ■i.
4 OA1104/2DJ2 , f any or some of the candidates or any other rejected candidates were found i to be coming within the zone of consideration according to merit vis-a-vis the empanelled candidates in the provisional panel, then their names were directed to be interpolated in the provisional list at appropriate places. The Respondent authorities, in obedience to the CAT, Kolkata order dated 09.04.2010, thereafter, published a provisional modified interpolated panel of 5512 candidates strictly according to merit and, as the applicant of the instant O.A. had failed to reproduce on the OMR sheet, as per instructions, the paragraph of page no. 3 of the question booklet delivered to him at the time of examination, his candidature was cancelled when detected at a later stage. The communication^!^? |)Sr§^in aPP*'ca^on form was not !■ cV' • v written by the candidate discovered ioAbe an erroneous , ^ it communication, whichrwaS:fPOT^v^MM^^ctua^^e °f rejection was , r- • t--W \ communicated to the applieaffi^TOOlfQ'J^QQ, thBj correct reason for ! ; V//7I.
rejection of the ^applicant's ^%ndidatWe^^jng .pid not write the \ paragraph which was gifen^i^page 3(three/-oKOueition Booklet in the OMR Sheet".
\\\
s/'' '7^y/ I
i
That, it was clearly noteci^^he^Notifi^ation No. 0106 that admission I to be examination centre is provisional as the applications are fully scrutinized later on and, in case a candidate does not fulfil the entire requirements prescribed in the Employment Notice, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected even at a later stage, when the deficiency is noticed.
Mere issue of call letter for appearing in written examination by RRC-ER does not confer any right for any subsequent stage of recruitment process or placing his/her name in the panel. According to the Respondents, as the applicant, in the instant O.A., had not reproduced the paragraph given in page 3 (three) of question booklet of OMR sheet, his candidature was ■ ! > J r >-
// 5 OAl104/2012 t . ■/ 1/ rejected and the reason of rejection being based on valid grounds, the V /■ instant O.A. is liabie to be rejected.
\
5. The point of determination in instant O.A. is whether the rejection » of the candidature of the applicant was invalid.
6. At the outset, we refer to the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 706/2009 and other O.As. and M.As. as issued on 09.04.2010, which has been relied upon by both the applicant and Respondent authorities. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:
4"30. In view of the above position as admitted by the railway respondents, and keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bicco Lawrie. case (supra), we are of the view that the rejection of thejzandidaiures^of the applicants herein is unreasonable arbitral^-anocafirfotfbe Supported and hence such rejection ord'ers^in indMdupj^cases^<stahd quashed and their i candidaturd' be^reconsiMr^dl^hhJhe stage it was stopped. In order to provide all^those similarly placed candidates mho rna^m^MS^^eford^us, we further direct 'i / that thef r^uitm^nt^S^^^^^ue^ppropjiate notice within a month fibtfethe d§te'f,^^^^^dc^g§ing ori$ rhonth's time from I the date\ofspch nfeticerfeMe/rho^spbrnit representations against such cahcmation Jtl^s^who havj^flready fffadja representation in respons&Sto earlie^qpjick*n'e'ecf reapply against) and consider the same accordijpgly^n the light oCdur^otisen/ations made above. The respondents'^s'hairalso^have'jp^ibert/to scrutinize on their own the rejentio^ofr$?6Tlakh$?£ahdidates as admitted by them. After completion^oCsCrutiny>Jf^ahf,for^some of the applicants or any other rejected cahdidates-*ari?iound to be coming within the zone of consideration according to merits vis-a-vis the empanelled candidates in the provisional panel, then their names , may be interpolated in the provisional list at appropriate places and j ♦ thereby excluding equal number of candidates in the existing provisional panel from the bottom. Entire exercise be concluded and revised panel published within six months from the date of this order and till then the existing provisional panel shall not be operated or if any appointment order has been issued, the same may be kept in abeyance."
Upon examination of the above operational paragraph of the order * the following are inferred:
(a) Rejection of the candidature of the applicants in various O.As. so considered by the Tribunal vide its order dated 09.04.2010 was ; ■ ct:;
/ // s ' // 6 OA1104/2012 i /' found to be unreasonable and arbitrary and hence such rejection k orders in individual cases stood quashed.
(b)That the candidatures of such individual applicants were to be considered from the stage at which it was stopped.
(c)To provide equal opportunity to all similarly placed candidates, who may not have approached the Tribunal. The Recruitment Cell was directed to issue appropriate notice within a month from the date of the order of the Tribunal giving one month's further time to such candidates to submit representations against such cancellation and those who had made such representations earlier were not to a pply afrestnO ^S ^ 3 /7, X . Q> % \ i 4 i
(d) Such represenfatiogS^rd^ b^con^idered^ Hby the Respondent authorities, k?
«*- i & 1
(e) Respondent: authlniti^s^^pl^lTavJthe liberf^ to scrutinize the case of i \ v\y i lakh rejected panaidates andr^fter completion of scrutiny, if^some'^of the^plican^r^ayother/rejected candidates are found tc^be'^mif^g^ithihTllS^pe^^onsideration according to merit vis-a-vis the^empanelled^andidates in the provisional panel, then their names may be interpolated in the provisional list at appropriate places thereby excluding equal number of candidates in the existing provisional panel from the bottom and that the entire exercise was to be completed within six months from the date of the order.
\ The highlighted inferences as deciphered from the above are as follows:
(i) That the individual rejections having been quashed, the
-X._.
!r r 7 0A1104/2012 ;
candidature of the applicant were to be considered from the stage it was stopped.
t
(ii) The Respondents had liberty to scrutinize the cause of ■ rejection of 2.6 lakh rejected candidates.
(iii) If any such rejected candidates come within the zone of consideration, according to merit, vis-a-vis the empanelled candidates, their names to be interpolated suitably in the provisional list.
It is noted herein that emphasis of the order of the Tribunal was on merit and that while individual rejections.were quashed by the Tribunal, the v_.
* 1 ^ «***X
Tribunal provided liberty to reconsider the candidature
^ 400***, *€> \
of each of the applicants solely^n^thejwdund of mew. The Respondents / have confirmed in 'stfteir JbWwTX provisional panel was •i i I I- wtiiUHi;r-
C ■ prepared strictly ;in ^ccordirrcCwJSf^ahd^ha!i5?e further ladmitted that the \ earlier cause of rejection a^Gpmmunibateif" to the candidate vide RRC's
-I •» i \ > / v reference dated 1(3vi2fi£f08>*rlimely that pafa^Qe} in Application form not written by the applicant\was latefJwithdfawh yide^a further communication dated 02.07.2009 and the act'Oal-cause^of'fejection of the candidate was noted as follows:
"You did not write the paragraph which was given in page r 3(three) of Question Booklet in the OMR Sheet." (Annexure-A/1 and A/2 to the O.A.) It has been admitted by the applicant and confirmed by the Respondents that the applicant was given an opportunity to appear in the RR Office on 20.07.2009 for inspection of documents for rejection of his candidature against Employment Notice No. 0106 of 2008 for recruitment in Group-D post and that, he after having personally inspected the OMR sheet on 20.07.2009, had submitted a written statement dated 20.07.2009 f { 5-' 5 ' V> 8 OA1104/2012 *) with his signature and thumb impression (Annexure-A/5 to the O.A).
r ! Annexure-A/5 to the O.A. also contained written statement of the applicant as submitted after inspection of his OMR sheet. Such copies as annexed as A/5 as the O.A. being illegible, the Respondent authorities had been directed subsequently, by the Tribunal to furnish the copy of the original OMR sheet of the applicant as well as the copy of the statement of the applicant dated 20.07.2009. On 12.10.2018 the Respondents had furnished the following documents:
1. Photo copy of OMR Sheet.
2. Copies of two letters of Sri Mriduranjan dated 20/07/2009.
3. Copy of letter of CPO_.(Admn.) & PI to Mriduranjan.
4. Letter of AGM/E.RIy ^Appellate Authority to Mriduranjan dated 12(0^0 u 1 j f 'r~ \ At the outset, tftfe\ cop£o0hfe «• K. lab^g^it's OltpNsheet is examined. ■ I The marked portioftTwhicS«is^i^5;Ca'u^e^f^ejectior) of the applicant is ■ f• 3 ! perused in detail. --Tlp^instru^^^^ie.^^jiws: ^ | c I "In your o\^^^fr^t^d^r^ng>r^prod,i9ce the paragraph ?
given in'the^ape^^f the Questiofi Bpolklet^n the line below." \ The applicant in his bwirha-Rdwf:iting'h%^written as follows:
\' i "In your own running handwriting reproduce the paragraph given in the Page-3 of the Question Booklet in the below."
The actual directions were that there was a paragraph noted in page 3 of the question booklet and candidates were directed to reproduce the contents of the said paragraph 3 in the space below in the OMR sheet but the applicant had reproduced the question itself in the OMR sheet and not reproduced the para 3 in his own handwriting in response to the directions . in the answer sheet.
k+Jv- f
<*
.U
„60-Z0-02-^Ba
[^l^bj Icfrhl^
i § ^ rlU>] c^^lcs| j 103^
gM^J Us li e- 96ed I9|>|00q uonseno hki^J ^ i Ik MO|0q 01a U| }0j>iooq
uoijsenb eqj p £- abed 9qi u| U0A16 qdej6ejed aqi anpojodaj BuuuMpueq buiuunj umo jnoA U| ^ >0t5Mjj p ht i qqM^ yiA]0£km MdejBejed J^^£- sBed PI>|ooq uous0nn lts>^ Q \h\t ih?l£>^| |g> >k ^ iggi-is y^o 1 IP^lhi IPb7^ 133HS dlAlO ihHkiJe 4 >»o-^o-^o
- fbihbj 6002/zt. iiid/y3-oyy <mi ord (uiupv) O r\ o}H ib. ih^j iPh.^ jcb tjDbiaP 3Eaf> [cb g IP5cb dl/\JO':
IPIcfrU>|cfe O d'd [p>lk Oijjlcla ^h^hfe>PrhP ...^ / >• 600S'Z0'03 JQ [PlfePI IcPhl^ / „ '..v >•> / .- \ « y < V '/A \ '\\t»> \£R icfe Hk^ il% hWsi lii± ^I6>^| Pjft l^t Icb He'hii'ye kik iftMcb ^iiV Pbjbk kht0 mfeie ^ ykkiyie cbMUfr :He li; r" .»► ■' a-^ friftinh kk2^ He'kii'^)e zj^e ^o- mh bP> [cp g Pp jhzi^lk'4 ^ ^ila J^lh ^k chiKiMh ^ 2^ He'kxi'^e iikM 12 kl^ ^ ^0- Mi ttS^' Mi IhQ }>oo}r6\o-6\o ^kMklMLk >cblt^ Hy kk |ik ^0000^ ipitfi[flcfrbjle cpjjicj) iho>^t kk ^IMyiie t^h[> Pil^ iPhife [U3 ^o-ko-o^ :p'h i>kP y ikh. ih& tyne kk'y j^k Mt^k yk mis ^k ko kh ph^ ^Me kik ^ Hkyiie ^ ipp^ ^k ^o-xo-^o kk4 tkme ikk>e ikk [pp lPbt» ^cb IMS c^hf^ cbP ^O-Xo'ko Plb^P-^'lhty \c& ?oo^-H-^ iyye :k£44kk 'fit [p ln>ct3^>P[ >03 acb PIP (tb ^lin >k [pP k' l>lh PhPb^lle [frlEfr[htk <kPkl[e PP ^>h'[h-. [pij [pP l^?lk p|4p [}-lSpiD]kp 1]-^ ^ y ^eMyk ki' Ik My kih y Phlhp^ eg (Phlnlkh kh ifey^h Mk Ik^k cp>j[}i^ ick mb. P^Jiy 4k ^-k& Ph Piy(hii^ IMS iPiekDkb v ^ [pj p Pb^y ppyp^ 'hfeldh-
^ kikkk <£ ^ig>y ?[i^ He'hh'^'-kJay IPIdaUHO) ^Ui> p^'U>P jpp, IPIckU^cb gajyick cppiap 'yik^,, ipaqsiujnj 8J8M s;u8UJ8}Bis U9UUM 8q; qoiqM u| 06en6uB| 041 u; Aijobx© 'M0|8q p0onpojd0j ©jb ©lubs ©q; pus j0yB©j©qj pesrusd ©jb SQjjuoqine iu©puods©y ©qi Aq ©iqBjjBAB ©pBLU sb iu©uj01b;s us;ium s^ueondde ©qi p s©!doo jb©|0 ©qi 5IOS/MIIVO 6 ! % .'l " 5 10 OA1104/2012 r The Respondents have furnished an English translation of the above statement, which is reproduced blow:-
"Dy. Chief Personnel Officer(Rectt.) Railway Recruitment Cell Eastern Railway Kolkata i i Sub: Regarding perusal of OMR Sheet personally.
i I beg to state that in reference to the letter of CPO(A) & I PIO's letter No.-RRC/ER/RTI/17/2009 dated 02/07/2009, I want J;
to peruse my OMR Sheet for which information has been given to Asst. Personnel Officer to day morning. [ I was shown the OMR Sheet. In the instruction given in OMR Sheet, it was mentioned to re-produce the paragraph ' given in the page-3 of the Question Booklets. I wrote "in your own running handwnting^e.-prqdOceJhe paragraph given in the page-3 of the Quezon BboKie?ip/the"'below". I did not write the paragraph,-in ^age-3^oW3jjesti<AkBobvklet for which I am responsible.^" ~ ,\ :■ V* •(.
>:■
^ur^ faithfully
t i
i
(/MRfDURANJAN)
\ eoll|No.-41114528
!
V1 Date: 20/07/2009
Tin^: 02:50" !•
!
7
•A r
v * *
From the above, it"llr-apspiresJbaW-h^apprtTcaht has clearly admitted '"-u.
:
that he was not able to correctly reproduce the paragraph given in page 3 of the question booklet in his own running handwriting and that he is responsible for the said lapse.
7. As the applicant had made a mistake in answering in the OMR sheet, he had little scope of being included in the zone of consideration on the basis of merit, The candidate has advanced the ground that when the Tribunal had observed that the rejection of the candidature of the applicant F was not sustainable then on the self same grounds candidature of the applicant cannot be rejected. It is seen that the original ground adduced by i } 'v■ JT--.
l i • I ' 11 OAl104/2012 the Respondent authorities in the rejection of his candidature was withdrawn and the actual cause of rejection was thereafter conveyed on 02.07.2009. It is nowhere averred by the applicant that the actual cause of rejection had been challenged by the applicant in the O.As. which were t disposed of by the Tribunal on 09.04.2010. In the absence of such i averments, we cannot conclude that the rejection of the candidature was on the self same ground. i i The actual reason for rejection of the applicant's candidature contains no allegation of impersonation either.
r The Tribunal, while disposing of the O.As. on 09.04.2010, had i directed and given libertyAtb^ Hhe 1 Rgi&ondbnts to scrutinize each representation and rejteion .ofi^efit/^Glrnittedly^tPie applicant had not /yt % filled his OMR sheet acfursit^Jy^-=aWd^heple has! hot been able to ! & Jl ,1 i ■ r" a convincingly justify that despit^dGW^enroCheldesei^esito be considered y//!\\\ Qj | \ %/ on merit for empahlltfient injK%#oVisfefeiMiit f / It is a settled principle ofjaw that a candidatejdoe% not have any legal right to be.appointed. 1n ternhs^of ^AqtiGle'-^O^He.Xas the right only to be considered therefor and sucPT^consideratroh is ordinarily required to be made in terms of existing rules. It has not been established that the Respondents have violated any rules in course of the recruitment process.
As held in the case of K.H.Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395, persons, who were not eligible candidates cannot question the legality or otherwise of the select list.
It has been further held in B.R.Bapuji (Dr.) Vs. Dr. N.Sivaramamurthy, Registrar, Telugu University, (1994) M LLJ 650 (AP) that the Court will not assess the relative merit of the candidates interviewed by the selection committee. This ratio has been reiterated in i Ua,' V f i 12 0A1104/2012 Vijay Syal Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 401, in that marks given by interview committee are not subject to judicial review unless malafide or arbitrariness are alleged. In S.L.Soni Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 156, it has been held that, while exercising the power of judicial i.
review, the court will not evaluate the comparative merits or suitability of candidates.
8. The applicant/candidate has admitted that he has filled part of the ) OMR sheet inaccurately. Such inaccuracy does not strengthen his claim to be considered on merit as the Respondent authorities have standardized t OMR sheets and Question Papers. Hence, correct response is to be recorded in OMR sheet in ^porii^tb^thlfguestion paper and this is an A-V'* ' - is* .
& \ absolute necessity as f5er the^e)^amihatibn|systenpMVe, therefore, cannot . £ $S\W//X ^, find any infirmity in the actidn^tb^Respohflent authjorities in rejecting the : r $ c ^ * applicant's candidature on aed5un%5T|inMSUrafte writirTg in the OMR sheet.
i a v//7i\vcy s i We are also of th4wconsidefedy^iew that^me Triburtal/had not quashed \ individual rejections^on^erit^but had give^^nbfrtV tc/all the applicants in t \ \f ^ y/ the various O.As. to b^redoqsid^refefresh qp^the^basis of merit and if the X..v ■»,.
_/ f.s' applicant has not qualified bn^mepiMhereafter, his claim for being I considered for empanelment does not arise.
Hence, in the background of our findings on facts as well as law, we are of the considered view that this application does not succeed on merit i t and is dismissed accordingly. There will be no orders as to costs. i t ! i % (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Member (J) RK/PS