Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajoo Rajak vs General Manager N C Rly on 24 April, 2025
Reserved on 22.04.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 24th day of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1624 of 2014
Rajoo Rajak S/O Bhujabal R/o House No. 69, Mohalla - Adwaha,
District - Lalitpur.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri V.K. Upadhyay and Shri S.K. Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Railway,
New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, District - Jhansi.
3. Assistant Personal Officer, North Central Railway, District -
Jhansi.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri V K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, 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 a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09/04/2014 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the opposite party no. 3.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 3 to grant RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page appointment to the applicant on the post of Gangmen under Larsgess scheme.
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue any such other and further orders or direction in favour of the applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and which the applicant may be entitled to under law, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
(iv) To ward to cost of the application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the respondents by way of which his prayer for appointment under Larsgess Scheme was rejected by the respondents claiming that his educational certificates were not obtained from the recognized institution. Applicant has contended that his educational certificates were obtained from recognized institution and thus prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2014 with a direction to the respondents' authorities to grant him appointment on the post of Gangmen under Larsgess Scheme. Respondents on the other hand have contended that the scheme under which the applicant is seeking appointment is no longer in existence as the same has been discontinued in view of the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant's father namely Shri Bhujabal was working in the respondents' department. He moved an application under the Larsgess Scheme for appointment of his son i.e., the applicant. It is also argued that the applicant appeared in the test held for appointment under Larsgess Scheme. During verification of educational certificates, objection was raised that educational certificate was not from the recognized RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page institution and it was not acceptable by the Railway Department and on that ground vide order dated 04.04.2014, candidature of the applicant was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed the present original application for setting aside the order dated 04.04.2014 / 09.04.2014 and prayer is also made to issue direction to the respondent no. 2/3 to grant appointment to the applicant on the post of Gangmen under Larsgess Scheme. It is also argued that institution from where the applicant had obtained the high school and intermediate examination certificate is the recognized institution. This issue has come before the full bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 48208/2012 titled Dhanpal and others Vs State of U.P. and others and recognition of the institution concerned was found in order. Thus, observation recorded by the respondents in the impugned order is illegal. It is also argued that the applicant's case pertains to the year 2014 and at that time, scheme of Larsgess was in existence and thus only on this ground that scheme has now been terminated, applicant's case cannot be rejected. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid writ as well as the educational certificates and further prayed to allow the OA directing the respondents to give appointment to the applicant under Larsgess scheme.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that although applicant's candidature was cancelled in the year 2014 yet scheme has now been terminated. The Government has withdrawn the facility allowed to the Railway employees and thus no appointment can be given under Larsgess Scheme, thus, whether educational certificates of the applicant were forged or genuine becomes meaningless as the Scheme is not in existence. To further substantiate the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021 titled Manjit and others Vs Union of India and another. Thus, respondents' counsel prayed to dismiss the OA at this stage itself.
RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the OA.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records and also perused the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dhanpal (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manjit (supra).
9. Applicant's candidature has been cancelled in the year 2014 doubting the genuineness of his educational certificates. Although the present OA has been filed in the year 2014, yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the issue of appointment under Larsgess Scheme in the case of Manjit (supra) vide its judgment dated 29.01.2021 has observed as under:
"Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union Government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed."
Thus, since the Apex Court in the aforesaid quoted order has specifically directed that all the claims based on the scheme of Larsgess must now be closed, this implies that petitions pending before the Tribunal under the Larsgess Scheme shall be discontinued. If the prayer made by the applicant is allowed, mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as given in the case of Manjit (supra) will be violated. Thus, on close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the relief claimed in the matter and also with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manjit (supra), when Union Government has discontinued the scheme and the Hon'ble RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page Supreme Court of India has specifically directed to close all the claims pertaining to such scheme, the instant OA is liable to be dismissed as no relief can be given as on date.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid deliberations and analysis, the instant OA is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
5|Page