Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rohit Thakurail vs M/O Railways on 6 December, 2021
1
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 06th Day of December, 2021)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
Original Application No. 330/01334 of 2017
Rohit Thakurail
Son of Anuj Kumar
Resident of 41, Indraprastha Enclave,
Dauli Pyau, Mathura
---- Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Udai Chandani
Versus
1. Union of India, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, opposite
N.C.R. Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad through its
Chairman
2. Union of India, Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, opposite
N.C.R. Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad through its
Secretary
---- Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Kumar Ray
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Shri Deepak Maurya, holding brief of Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. By virtue of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks quashing of the selection process of the provisional result for various Group C posts in Page 1 of 4 2 the Indian Railways on the ground that despite having scored much higher marks then several of the shortlisted candidates, his name is missing from the list of candidates called for Document Verification. For the sake of clarity, the portion in the O.A. claiming the relief is being reproduced below verbatim:
"A) To quash the entire selection process as well as the provisional result dated 11.08.2017 pertaining to the post of Commercial Apprentice (CA), Traffic Apprentice (TA), Enquiry-cum-
Reservation Clerk (ECRC), Goods Guard (GG) i.e., category 1, 2, 3 and 4 issued from the office of respondent no. 2 relating to the Central Employment Notice No. 03 of 205 for Non Technical Popular Categories (Graduate) which was published on 26.12.2015.
B) To issue a direction to the respondents authority to consider the claim of the applicant relating to appointment on the post of Commercial Apprentice (CA), Traffic Apprentice (TA), Enquiry- cum-Reservation Clerk (ECRC), Goods Guard (GG) i.e. category 1, 2, 3 and 4.
C) To summon the records of the applicant relating to his candidature based on Registration No. 1372050078 and Roll No. 13318044110523 which will establish the illegality committed by the office of respondent no. 2 beyond doubt.
D) To issue an order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
E) To award the cost to the applicant."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention initially to the advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for Document Verification which mentions that the Document Verification being done for the various posts which are classified as different categories viz. category 1, 2, 3 and so on.
Page 2 of 4 34. Learned counsel further points out that the documents obtained by the applicant through the Right to Information Act indicate that the candidate had scored 84.7953 marks in the selection examination. He points out that the same documents also indicate that the candidates who had scored much less marks than the applicant have been called for Document Verification. In particular, he draws attention to the document indicating his cut off marks which is placed at Page 54 (Annexure - A3) to the O.A. which indicates that for category No. 2, 4 and 7, candidates with marks much less than what had been obtained by the applicant were called for Document Verification. Learned counsel argues that the applicant had applied for all the categories hence, not giving him an opportunity for Document Verification is blatantly unfair and discriminatory. He points towards the response of the respondents to his RTI applicant as suspicious as the authorities have refused certain information on the ground that the selection process is still in motion and has not been finalised.
5. Shri Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the respondents, draws attention to the short counter affidavit that he has filed and explains that the decision of the respondents not to invite the applicant for Document Verification is based solely on the actual record as available in official documents. He submits that the applicant had applied truly under four categories viz. category 1, 3, 5 and 6 drawing strengths from the same document as is placed at Page 56. Learned counsel points out that in all these four categories under which the applicant had applied, the cut off marks are much higher than what the candidate had obtained and hence, the respondents have rightly not invited him for Document Verification.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant contests this argument by stating that as far as his knowledge goes, the applicant had applied in all the categories but he could not ascertain this fact on account of denial of such information by respondents under RTI Act.
7. In our view, the entire case hinges upon the marks obtained by the applicant vis-à-vis the last candidate in the short list for document Page 3 of 4 4 verification in the respective categories in which the candidate had applied. Now the limited issue is whether the applicant had also applied under category 2 and 4 in which the last short listed candidate has marks much lower than the applicant. This can only be ascertained by the records which are in possession of the respondents. Accordingly, we think it would be appropriate to dispose of this O.A. at this stage with a direction to the respondents to treat this O.A. as the representation of the applicant and decide it by way of a detailed reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. While deciding the aforesaid representation, the Competent Authority amongst the respondents shall squarely be guided by the factual position as is obtained by the documents and records especially with respect to ascertaining that the candidate had submitted his application for category 2 and 4 also wherein his marks are much higher than the last short listed candidate. The Competent Authority may take into consideration all other facts and circumstances as are available on record.
8. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a supplementary representation if he so wishes within a period of one week from today.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. stands disposed of.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Meanwhile, the name of respondent No. 1 i.e., Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi, may be deleted from the array of parties as prayed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
(Ritu Raj)
Page 4 of 4