Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sonali Narendra Ramteke vs South East Central Railway on 10 July, 2024
1 OA No. 550/2022 Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench Camp at Nagpur OA No. 550/2022 Order reserved on: 27.06.2024 Order pronounced on: 1.0.04-2024 Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A) Sonali D/o Narendra Ramteke Aged 28 years R/o Plot No.19, Indira Nagar, Bhilgaon, _ Kamptee Road, Behind Naka No.2, Th. Dist. Nagpur-440026. - .. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. S.T.Chavan) Versus 1. Union of India through its General Manager, GM Complex, RTS Colony, Railway Colony, . South East Central Railway, Bilaspur-(CG)495004. 2. - Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), South East Central Railway, | Railway Colony, Bilaspur-(CG)495004. 3. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Near SECR G.M.Office, RTS Colony, Tarbhar Chowk, Bilaspur-495004. | _... Respondents (By Advocate:, Mr. R.D.Damle) 2 OA No.550/2022 ORDER
By Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J) The applicant has filed this application for direction to the respondents to appoint her on any suitable post pursuant to Notification issued by Indian Railway CEN 01/2018.
2. Facts leading to this application are that Employment Notification was issued by Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and Technician on 3" February, 2018. The applicant applied Online for the said post on 23™ February, 2018 along with all relevant material documents. On 31% August, 2018, for Cormputer Based Test examination I-Card was issued in which Centre. for the examination allotted to the applicant was Nagpur. Applicant appeared for the said - examination and successfully cleared it. She also cleared the second stage . computer based test. Thereafter the RRB published third stage of examination of Computer Based Aptitude Test (CBAT) which was held on 10" May, 2019. She cleared this test also. Thereafter, document verification was to be » carried out on 14" June, 2019. All the documents of the --
3 OA No. 550/2022 .applicant were verified on 23% August, 2019, Some objections in the document were: raised and the applicant removed all these objections. She cleared medical examination also.
3. The applicant alleged that despite clearing all the examinations and even after document verification the applicant did not get any response from the RRB. Therefore, she filed an application under RTI on 25° December, 2021. She got the reply on 15" March, 2022 in which it was mentioned that her cut off marks for Technician post was 54.40013 (CBT-II Part 'A') and for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot was 58.41279 (70% CBT-II Part 'A' + 30% CBAT marks). She was informed that she was not eligible to be appointed as her marks were below the cut off marks. The applicant realized that she was not considered for the post of Technician in which she had secured 54.40013 (CBT-II Part 'A). She also realised that the candidates who had secured less marks than her were selected. Therefore, the applicant has filed this application. She has contended that despite successfully completing all the stages of examination and passing all the exams, she 4 OA No.550/2022 was not considered for the post of Technician. Therefore, she has filed this OA for the aforesaid relief.
4. Respondents filed reply. They admit that the applicant had cleared all the stages of examination process. They contend that the notification contains instructions to the effect that "the eligibility of the candidates will be considered only on the strength of the information furnished in the ON LINE. 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."
5. They contend that during document verification it was revealed that the applicant had mentioned her qualification as ITI in Electronics Mechanic. She had given false information of her educational qualification in her online application. In terms of instructions contained in the notification the candidature of the applicant was rejected.
Her candidature for the post of Technician was not 5 OA No. 550/2022 'considered. They, therefore, did not consider. her |
- candidature for the said post. ©
6. We have heard the learned counsel for applicant and the learned counsel for respondents. | Te Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the.
applicant had applied for the post of Technician. One of the qualifications for the post of Technician Electrical is Degree in Electronics Engineering. Applicant possesses . | that qualification. - The respondents did not consider her candidature for the post of Technician Electrical on the ground that she had mentioned her qualification as ITI when her qualification was Degree in Electronics Engineering. He submitted that this mistake had occurred _ because while filling the form in the drop down box the system was not. accepting the option of Degree in Engineering. The applicant was unable to submit the application. Therefore, she had to mention ITI in the_ column of qualification and thereafter only the applicant could submit the form. | Learned counsel contended that the said mistake occurred because of the fault in the system. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an affidavit 6 OA No.550/2022 with the respondents giving all these details. He submitted that. she had filed an affidavit just to show her bonafides.
8. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the applicant filled the form incorrectly. She had Degree in Electronics but she mentioned in the form as ITI. This information was false, and therefore, her candidature for that post was rejected. He submitted that the rejection was in consonance with the instructions contained in the notification, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be considered for the said post of Technician. For the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and other posts her marks were below the cut off marks, and therefore, she was not considered for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, Technician Grade-II Signal, Technician Grade-III Telecommunication,
9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. | We have perused the. record annexed with the application.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant had mentioned her qualification as ITI in Electronics for the post of Technician.. At subsequent place she has mentioned her 4 OA No. 50/2022 qualification as Degree ih Electronics Engineering. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that the system was not accepting the Degree in Electronics Engineering while filling the form for the post of Technician. It is pertinent to note that the applicant did not mention this fact in her application. She has vaguely mentioned in her application that during document verification some objections were raised and she removed it. This fact was brought on record by the respondents in their reply. Despite this, the applicant has not filed rejoinder explaining the circumstances in which this mistake has occurred. During oral submissions learned counsel contended that this mistake occurred because the system was not accepting Degree in Electronics 'Engineering. Thus, the applicant not only gave false information during filling of online form but also suppressed this fact from this Tribunal. She did not explain the circumstances in which this mistake occurred nor did she file rejoinder explaining the circumstances in which this mistake was committed. The respondents, therefore, have no opportunity to meet these allegations.
8 OA Na.550/202211. The instructions mentioned in notification have been referred to above in para 4 of the judgment. . These instructions specifically state that if any information is found to be incorrect, the application for that post shall be rejected forthwith. The respondents, therefore, rejected the application for the post of Technician. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the applicant as to why this fact was not brought on record in the OA. She could have explained the circumstances in which she mentioned ITI by filing rejoinder. She did not do that too. We had asked the learned counsel for the applicant as to how many candidates faced such type of problem. He had no answer to it. The applicant has not brought anything on record to show that other candidates also had faced this problem. in the absence of these details it is difficult to believe that only the applicant had faced this problem owing to which she had to mention ITI. In these circumstances, respondents are justified in rejecting her candidature for the post of Technician Technical.
9 OA No. 550/202212. In these circumstances, OA is bereft of any merit.
Hence, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap} | (M.G.Sewlikaz) Member {A) Member (J) 'SD'