Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Vimal Kumar vs M/O Railways on 2 December, 2021
the CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 106/2016 Order reserved on: 25.11.2021 Date of order: O2:\2:2041 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J) Vimal Kumar S/o Mohar Lal Caste-Jatav, Aged-24 years, R/o Nagla Chauhari, Post-Masari, Tehsil Katumbar, District-Alwar. ... Applicant (By Adv: Shri Akshat Dewan proxy for Punit Singhvi) VERSUS 4. Union of India through General Manager, Department of Railways, North Western Railways, Head Office, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Ministry of Railways, North Western Railways, Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur. ....Respondents (By Adv: Shri P.K. Sharma) ORDER
per; Hina p. Shah, Member (J The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"4, By an appropriate order OF direction the action of the Respondents of rejecting © IN the candidature of the Applicant on a highly whimsical and arbitrary ground may kindly be declared as Arbitrary, Unconstitutional and illegal.
2. By an appropriate order or direction the action of Respondents of cancelling the candidature of the Applicant vide communication dated 06.10.2015 during document verification may kindly be quashed and set aside. Further, the Respondents may be directed to give appointment to the Applicant will all consequential benefits.
3. That any other beneficial orders or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly passed in favour of the applicant.
vi) Cost be quantified in favour of the applicant."
? The case of the Applicant is that the Respondents had issued an Employment Notification no. 03/2013 (GP-1800 RRC NWR) dated 14.12.2013 for several Gr. D posts in Pay Band-1 (Rs. 5200-20200) with GP-Rs. 1800/- in NWR and Applicant who belongs to SC tegory had applied for the same as he fulfilled all the ca quisites for the said appointment. He has cleared his re Secondary Examination in 2008 and thereafter pursued in Electronics Engineering from Board of Diploma Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Annexure- A/4). The Applicant while filling form for examination online mentioned about the Engineering Diploma and its Certificate number (0513602) instead of Secondary es) Examination details (021951) in column seeking Educational qualification. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination and after qualifying appeared for physical test and thereafter called for document verification. After document verification through internet he was informed that his candidature was rejected. He was denied appointment but persons lower in merit were thereafter given appointment. It is the case of the Applicant that he preferred an application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information regarding reason of cancellation of his candidature vide letter dated 22.01.2016. Thereafter he was communicated that his candidature was rejected on account of the fact that the serial number of the certificate pertaining to educational qualification mentioned in the form does not match with the certificate of the Secondary examination of the Applicant. Since the Diploma in Engineering was the certificate of higher qualification, therefore the same was mentioned in the form. Thus there was a human error in not mentioning the certificate number of secondary examination mark-sheet. This could not be a ground to reject the candidature of the Applicant wherein he was successful in all the rounds and merely on highly technical ground the Respondents are fs 10: 4 adamant in depriving him of employment. Therefore, being aggrieved by the inaction of the Respondents in non-inclusion of the name of the Applicant in the final result for the Gr.-D post, he has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. 3, This Tribunal vide its order dated 16.02.2016 had issued notice to the Respondents and had passed interim orders to the extent that Respondents were directed to keep one post vacant (if available) in the category of SC pursuant to employment notification no. 03/2013 for the Applicant and the said interim relief continued till date.
4. Respondents filed their reply stating that in spite of the option available to the Applicant to submit the application online or offline, Applicant chose to submit the same online. Those applying online were required to fill the details and serial numbers of the requisite educational and other certificates On the basis of which he could claim his eligibility under the notification. Admittedly he has filled incorrectly serial number of his matriculation mark sheet in the column prescribed for details of educational certificate while filing up the application form. Answering Respondents have received 745131 applications online and 164676 offline. The offline applications were scrutinized before issuance of aac ane oe SEE vere twa call letters for written examination while no such scrutiny was possible in case of online applications as no documents were uploaded nor submitted. At the scrutiny stage 76706 applications were rejected which includes mismatch of serial number of documents. Thus rejection of the application of the Applicant on the said basis cannot be treated to be a minor error so as to consider him. Thus having the desired qualification or qualifying different stages of selection does not entitle him to be appointed as well when his candidature itself stood rejected. As per Annexure-I of the application form which was related to educational qualification, in which column no. 16 clearly required mentioning about the certificate number, date and name of the board of metric/secondary/IT1 certificates. It is at the time of document verification, it was found that the serial number 0513602 of education certificate in column 16 (educational qualification) of application form did not match with the original certificate of metric/secondary certificate. Therefore, aS per Para 17.7. of the notification no. 03/2013 (RRC/NWR) dated 14.12.2013, eligibility of the Applicant was rejected. The same was informed to the Applicant vide letter dated 06.11.2015 (Annexure-R/2). Even under RTI the Applicant was informed vide letter dated 22.01.2016 about rejection of a 6 QA No, 106/2016 his candidature. Also the RRC always maintains full transparency in the recruitment process. It is stated that 43 applications were rejected for providing wrong serial numbers of educational qualification and thus application of the Applicant was also rejected in the same manner. Therefore, the Applicant has no claim for the said post and the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on the said ground itself and the interim order dated 16.02.2016 be vacated as their action is in consonance with the rules. 5, The Applicant has not filed any Rejoinder denying the submissions of the Respondents.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely as well _as the judgements cited by the parties.
7. ne Applicant and the Respondents reiterated their as stated earlier.
ion which requires to be considered is jdature of the Applicant ought to have been cancelled on the ground of human error/bonafide mistake 19 submitting wrong education certificate number and when he has already been protected by the interim directions and when no third party rights are affected .
----_--
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that Applicant being an SC candidate had applied for the Group-D post in pursuance to the notification no. 03/2013 dated 14.12.2013 and after fulfilling the criteria as required Applicant applied for the said post. He was given a call letter and had appeared in the written examination and had passed in the same and thereafter he appeared in physical test which also he cleared. He was then called for document verification and it is there 'the fact came to notice of the Respondents that Applicant mentioned serial number 0513602 of education certificate in column no. 16 of the application form which did not match with the original certificate of the metric/secondary certificate produced by him. Therefore, as per para 17.7 of the notification no. 03/2013 (GP-1800 RRC NWR) dated 14.12.2013, eligibility of the Applicant was rejected.
10. After going through the case of the Applicant, we see that the stand taken by the Respondents is that as per provisions contained in para 17.7 of the Employment Notification No. 03/2013 (GP-1800 RRC NWR), it was clear that RRC Jaipur is free to reject any application not fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions and criteria, at any stage of recruitment. If appointed erroneously, such ile) candidates services shall be summarily terminated without assigning any reason. As such the application form of the Applicant dated 24.04.2015 was treated as invalid/ineligible by the competent authority for Gr.-D posts and same has been rejected. Thus as the candidature of the Applicant was rejected as per specific condition mentioned in the Notification dated 14.12.2013 and as such there is no illegality in rejecting the application form of the Applicant.
11. As it is seen, the Applicant belongs to SC Category and he committed a human error in writing his Engineering Diploma Certificate number (0513602) instead of Secondary Examination Certificate no. (021951) in the column seeking educational qualification in the online application form filled by him. At Column 16, Applicant instead of writing his secondary no.
certificate number he instead wrote his Engineering Diploma Certificate number. It is clear that it is a bonafide mistake and a human error committed by him. At the time of document verification it was found that Applicant mentioned serial number 0513602 of education certificate in column no. 16 of application form, which did not match with the original certificate of metric/secondary certificate as required. Therefore, as per para 17.7 of the notification no. 03/2013 (GP-1800 ho AN 2016 RRC NWR) dated 14.12.2013, eligibility of the Applicant was rejected.
12. Itis trite law that even in administrative Matters, if decision adversely affects a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provisions for giving an opportunity, the principles of natural justice js inbuilt. Though it is true that that the advertisement clearly stated the candidates are required to be cautious in filling online applications and any mistake/error would debar such applications, but due to the bonafide mistake on part of the Applicant, the Respondents should have allowed the said correction, but the same was not done, It is clear that while filling the form online, human error cannot be completely ruled out and the Applicant therefore he should not be penalized so harshly for such an error. A candidate, whose marks are above cut off marks or is in merit, deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error, As such, in the present case, the bonafide mistake committed by Applicant was that while writing the serial number of onion certificate he had mentioned the certificate number of Engineering Diploma Certificate. Thus the said technical error/bonafide mistake deserves to be rectified/corrected and applicant should be allowed to Sr rectify the error. In the present case no third party rights are affected as the Applicant is having interim protection in his favour vide order dated 16.02.2016 wherein one post under the advertisement is kept vacant for him.
13. It is clear that a human error can be rectified provided no third party right is affected and we are in agreement with the judgement cited by the Applicant in case of K. Vanaraj V/s. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Anr. decided by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P No. 23802/2018 on 10.01.2019. The said judgement has also considered the judgement relied by the Respondents of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar V/s. Saifudaullah Khan and others, reported in 2011 (12) SCC 85, which had held that any relaxation in the rules is not permissible. The Madras High Court after going through the said case has observed that it is not the case where the Petitioner has attempted to mislead the Commission or claim a certain benefit which he is otherwise not entitled but the bonafide mistake is bound to be rectified. Petitioner in such circumstances deserves to be given a chance to appear for the interview dehors the mistake committed by him in filing his educational qualification. It is noted that the present case in hand is ~ almost identical to the facts of the case of K. Vanraj(supra) and thus the Applicant in the present case also deserves to be given a chance to rectify the mistake and participate jn the selection process.
14. In view of the observations made above, the action of the Respondents call for interference and they are directed to permit the Applicant to carry out the | necessary correction and submit appropriate certificate A and pass appropriate orders in that respect and accordingly allow the Applicant to participate in further selection process i.e. medical examination also in view of the interim protection granted to the Applicant vide order dated 16.02.2016 and if otherwise found suitable, he may be given appointment on the said post with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within three months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. No costs. A ] (Hina P. Shah) | -" (Dinesh Sharma) _ | Member (J) Member fay \ We~ gamer