Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Neeraj Kumar Singh vs M/O Defence on 25 November, 2025
Reserved on 04.11.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 25th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1552 of 2015
Neeraj Kumar Singh son of Charan Singh Resident of Chahar
(besides Petrol Pum Chhata) District - Mathura.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Ms. Karishma Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary (Defence) Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi.
2. Commandant 506 Army Base Workshop Agra Cantt, Agra.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey
ORDER
(By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial) Ms. Karishma Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"(i) To issue an order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 18.09.2015 passed by Lt. Col Offg GM (P&A), rejecting the petitioner representation dated 25.08.2015 without considering the submission made by the applicant.
(ii) To direct the respondent to produce the examination copies of the applicant and other candidate.
RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page
(iii) To issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of this case to the applicant."
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the respondents rejecting the representation dated 25.08.2015 of the applicant. The respondents have issued a notification for apprentice on 16 seats belonging to the trade of Electrician. The applicant had applied for the same but has been declared unsuccessful. The applicant alleges manipulation of results by the respondents' authorities and therefore had filed the aforesaid representation seeking redressal of his grievance. Being still aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant original application seeking quashing of the order dated 18.09.2015 thereby directing the respondents to produce the copies of the examination of the applicant and other candidates and further allow the applicant to join and complete the apprentice in Electrician Trade.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant belongs to OBC category and has successfully completed Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution in the year 2012 and as such he had applied for the advertisement issued by the respondent no 2 for apprenticeship on 16 posts for the trade of Electrician. In the advertisement, there was no mention of reservation of seats of SC/STT and OBC. His application was accepted and he was issued admission card. The applicant appeared in the written examination held on 23.01.2014 for electrician trade and in the interview which was held on 24.01.2014 but the respondents did not declare the result and as such the applicant was compelled to prefer an RTI but for no avail. The respondents by letter dated 06.03.2014 replied to the RTI and stated that the result was under finalization and will be declared later. Finally, in reply to a legal notice sent by the applicant, the RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page respondents issued information on 28.08.2014 and the applicant did not find his name in the merit list. It was argued that the applicant had obtained 21 marks in the written examination and 21 marks in the practical and no marks were given in the interview nor the cut off merit was disclosed and as such the applicant could not figure out on what basis he was declared unsuccessful. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached before the Tribunal vide OA No 326 of 2015 which was decided vide judgment dated 07.08.2015 and the applicant was asked to move a fresh representation to which the respondents were directed to take a decision on. In compliance, the applicant preferred a representation dated 25.08.2015 and the plea of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 18.09.2015, which is under challenge in the instant OA. It was further argued that the representation of the applicant has been illegally rejected by the respondents without disclosing the cut off marks in the electrician trade and without considering the allegations made in the representation. It was argued that the action of the respondents is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the statutory rules and fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow this OA thereby directing the respondents to summon the result of the applicant and other candidates and also further allow the applicant to join and complete the apprentice in Electrician Trade.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and referring to his counter affidavit, he argued that a Board of Officers was convened for the purpose of selection of suitable candidates for imparting apprenticeship training. A total of 28 candidates appeared for the selection trade test against 16 vacancies available in the trade of Electrician. The cut off marks for selection of candidates in the trade of Electrician on merit was fixed as 53. The applicant obtained 11 marks in Gen Aptitude test, 10 marks in Trade test, 10 marks in Practical Skill test, 11 marks in Viva Voce which amounts to a total of 42 marks and thus, he was nowhere RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page near the cut off marks and accordingly, he was declared unsuccessful. The result was declared on 06.04.2014 by displaying the list of selected candidates on the Notice Board of the unit. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement under the General Instruction [Para 4(i)] that "nominal roll of eligible candidates will be displayed on the Notice Board of 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra." Call letters were issued to selected candidates only. Since the applicant was not successful, no letter was issued to him. Furthermore, every information as sought by the applicant either by way of RTI or legal notice, was duly supplied to him by the respondents. Being aggrieved with his non-selection, the applicant earlier approached before the Tribunal vide OA No 326 of 2015 which was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the applicant to file representation and the respondents to decide the same. Upon receiving the representation, the respondents have decided the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order dated 18.09.2015. It was further argued that the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with rules and also in conformity to the provisions as stipulated in the advertisement. The applicant had applied for the selection after agreeing to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and only because he did not turn out to be successful, he is challenging the examination process which is not feasible in the eyes of law. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the instant original application being devoid of merits.
7. Rejoinder and Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts as have been narrated in the OA. It has also been argued on behalf of the applicant that the notification / advertisement was issued contrary to the reservation policy which is required to be followed in case of recruitment and the applicant was liable to be accorded the benefit of reservation under OBC category to which he belongs.
8. Respondents have also filed a supplementary affidavit in reply to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant and referring to the same, learned counsel for the respondents argued that RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page since the applicant had secured lesser marks than the cut off marks, he was not declared successful in the selection. Further, the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with rules to which no illegality can be attributed. As regards to the applicant's contention that he should have been considered under OBC category is concerned, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that no provision regarding treating the applicants under OBC or SC/ST category for awarding selection was enumerated in the notification and as such treating the applicant as OBC candidate is out of question.
9. A Supplementary Affidavit dated 10.10.2025 has also been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant referring to which it was argued that the order dated 18.09.2015 by way of which the representation dated 25.08.2015 of the applicant has been rejected is absolutely cryptic, non-speaking and illegal. It was argued that the marks of the applicant were amongst the highest till the stage of written examination and it is absolutely out of equation and unthinkable as to how he scored such low marks in the interview stage and the respondents have certainly manipulated the results to accord the benefit of selection to some specific persons. To substantiate her arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No 960 of 2017 titled Gaurav Saxena and 15 others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others. Referring to the same, it was argued that it is also a case of a person getting higher marks in the written examination being failed in the final selection by giving him less mars in the interview and in the said case, reply was sought from Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and the State Government. Since the same has happened to the applicant in the instant case, his case is squarely covered and is liable to be given same treatment. We have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant.
10. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the records.
RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page
11. As the brief facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is evident from the records that the applicant had applied for the advertisement issued by the respondents for the post of Apprentice (Electrician Trade) and is aggrieved by the fact that despite securing higher marks in the written test, he was deliberately awarded lesser marks in the interview stage by the respondents and the respondents authorities have manipulated the result in such a way that the applicant was unsuccessful in the selection. Allegations have also been made that the applicant was not duly communicated about the results. Respondents on the other hand have argued that the entire selection process was carried out in accordance with rules and following the provisions stipulated in the advertisement.
12. It is pertinent to record that the applicant had applied for the notification after agreeing to all the terms and conditions which were stipulated in the same. Applicant has participated in all the stages of the examination and is aggrieved that although he secured higher marks in the written test, the respondents have deliberately accorded lesser marks to him in the interview stage and this is why the applicant could not get selected. Applicant has also alleged manipulation of result on the part of the respondents but no oral or documentary evidence has been brought on record which may corroborate this allegation. Further, it is also necessary to record that once the applicant had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the advertisement and has participated in the examination process, no allegations regarding the procedure of the examination can be made by him. As far as the claim of the applicant that he could not have secured such less marks in the interview stage just because he secured higher marks in the written stage, it is necessary to hold that such logic is unreasonable and uncalled for. It is vivid from the records and pleadings exchanged across the bar that the interview was conducted by a designated panel of the respondents and when a particular stage of the examination has been conducted by an expert committee, there remains very limited scope for the Tribunal or Court RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page to interfere in its decision. The only thing which is required to be see is whether the selection process was carried out in accordance with rules and in conformity to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and since no such irregularity can be traced in the instant case, the impugned order and the result of the examination cannot be interfered with. In this regard, it would also be in the fitness of things to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395, wherein it was held that:-
"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper........".
Similarly, in Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Apex Court held as under:-
"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-
"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not 'palatable' to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process."
Furthermore, same principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, wherein it was held that:-
"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ......The Court also referred to the RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise........"
Thus, in view of the aforesaid quotations, once he had accepted to the terms and conditions of the examination and thereafter participated in the same, the applicant cannot allege that just because he has been awarded lesser marks in the interview stage after having secured higher marks in the written stage, the entire selection process is vitiated or that some manipulation of the results has been made at the end of the respondents. The facts of the case vividly show that the applicant was not selected due to the reason that his merit was lower than the cut off marks. Furthermore, the case law relied by the applicant's counsel does not extend any benefit to the case of the applicant as no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record which may ascertain that the selection process was vitiated.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.
14. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
8|Page