Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Harishchand vs North Central Railway on 9 October, 2025
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
This the 09th day of October, 2025
Original Application No. 1009/2023
Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Harishchand, S/o Radhey Shyam Bind, R/o Village Pidauna, Post
Ugrasenpur, District Prayagraj.
.....Applicant
By Adv: Shri Sunil
Shri Seemant Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway (N.C.R.),
Valmiki Chauraha, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA
3. Chief Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Recruitment Cell, North Central
Railway (N.C.R), Valmiki Chauraha, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
. . .
Respondents
By Adv: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
ORDER
Delivered by: Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J) Heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:
"(a) To set aside the impugned communication dated 30.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 the candidature of the applicant has been rejected in the selection of group D post on account of having used whitener/eraser in the OMR sheet of the written examination held on 08.12.2013 pursuant to advertisement dated 11.08.2012 published in the employment notice No. 01/2012 issued by the respondent.
(b) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to call the applicant for appearing in document verification cum medical examination on account of having been passed in the Physical Efficiency Test held on 04.03.2014.
(c) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to declare the final result of applicant in the selection of Group D post, in case applicant is declared qualified in document verification cum medical examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.2012 published in the employment notice No. 01/2012 by the respondents.
(d) Issue an order or direction in the appropriate nature which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Award the cost of the Original application to the applicants.
3. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application are that the an advertisement being Notification No.01/2012 was floated by the respondents for filling up the post of Group-D. The applicant being eligible, applied for the said post. Thereafter, he appeared in the written test, which PUNIT was to be held on 08.12.2013 and was declared successful in the said KUMAR MISHRA exam. Subsequently, he was called for Physical Test and he appeared in the said test, wherein he was declared successful. 3.1 On 20.08.2015, the respondents declared the final result, but the name of the applicant was not found in the selected final list. Aggrieved by the same, he approached before the respondents in order to get his document verification and medical examination, conducted by the respondent, but no heed was paid.
3.2 Thereafter, he moved an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 06.06.2023 before the Public Information officer, Northern Central Railway, Head Quarter, Subedarganj, Prayagraj. In reply, it was informed to the applicant that result has already been declared and no further action is remaining. The applicant was further informed that he has obtained 70.62 marks and overall rank of the applicant is 1912. The applicant was under
shock that he has obtained 70.62 marks, whereas the cut off merit of Other Backward Classes is 70.03 marks. Thereafter, the applicant again submitted a representation on 28.08.2023 for consideration of case and to provide the reasons about his non-selection of Group D post. Subsequently, the Chairman issued the communication dated 30.08.2023 by stating therein that the applicant was not selected due to the reasons that he had used the whitner/eraser in his OMR sheet of the written examination as such, his candidature was rejected. The order/communication dated 30.08.2023 is impugned in this Original Application. .
4. Mr. Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order/communication on the ground that if the applicant erased the OMR sheet, then the marks awarded to those questions may not be counted in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.587- 588 of 2016. The cancellation of the candidature of the applicant is not PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA permissible in the eyes of law. However, OMR sheet will be scrutinized and result will be declared. Before cancellation of the candidature of the applicant, no show cause notice has been issued to the applicant.
Therefore, cancellation of the candidature of the applicant is wholly illegal and arbitrary. On the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order is liable to quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the during scrutiny of the OMR answer sheet, it was observed that the applicant used whitener/eraser in his OMR answer-sheet. This act is in direct violation of the instructions clearly printed on the OMR answer sheet, as well as the provisions outlined under Column 4, 5 & 10 of the OMR sheet and also the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the respondents have considered each and every aspect of the matter. Hence, instant original application is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. It reflects from the record that admittedly the applicant was allowed to participate in the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, during the scrutiny of the OMR answer sheet, it was found that the applicant had erased and altered the question booklet number and question
12. It reflects from the OMR Sheet of the applicant, which is annexed as CR- 1 to the counter affidavit, the applicant had erased and marked new circle in question 12. The OMR answer sheet and the examination instructions (specifically clauses 5, 10, and 13) explicitly prohibit any changes to marked PUNIT answers. Once a bubble is darkened, no alteration is permitted. These KUMAR MISHRA instructions also state that non-compliance would render the OMR sheet invalid. For better appreciation of the matter, the relevant instruction annexed with OMR (appended as page 35 of Counter affidavit) is quoted as under :-
5. जरूरत के वििरण सािधानी ऩूिक व ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक में भरना है ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक में बदऱाि की अनुमतत नह ीं है l
10. अभ्यर्थवयों को प्रश्नों का उत्तर िैकल्पऩक उत्तर एबीसी या डी में से दे ना है प्रत्येक प्रश्न में सह उत्तर चुना है और िह अमर उत्तर ऩत्र में सह गोऱा रखना है एक बार रीं गे हुए गऱे को बदऱने की अनुमतत नह ीं है l
13. ऊऩर िर्णवत अनुदेशो के नह ीं ऩाऱन करने ऩर आऩकी ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक अमान्य होगी और उनकी जाींच नह ीं की जाएगी
8. The act of tampering with or erasing marked bubbles on the OMR sheet is a serious violation, as it undermines the integrity of the examination process. The applicant, having violated the specific instructions of the examination, cannot claim a vested right to appointment.
9. Further, the advertisement was issued in 2012 and we are in 2025 and as such, no direction can be given at this stage for consideration of the case of the applicant.
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is warranted in the impugned orders.
11. Accordingly, instant original application is liable to be dismissed and as such, same is hereby dismissed.
12. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
13. No order as to costs.
PUNIT (Anjani Nandan Sharan) KUMAR (Justice Rajiv Joshi) MISHRA Member (A) Member (J) Sahil/PM