Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Niranjan Kumar Ranjan vs S E Railway on 13 June, 2023
2 0.a. 1379.2019 For the Respondents : Mr. D. Chowdhury, Counsel ORDER (Oral)
Per Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member:
In the instant O.A. the applicant is seeking the following relief: -
"Gj) An order / directing to cancel, rescind, quash and set aside the impugned rejection letter no. SER / P~ HQ / RRC / 565 / M.A. no. 1015 & O.A. no. 1808 / 2017 dated 04.09.2019 as the same is bad in law and cannot be allowed to sustain.
(ii) An order directing the respondents to recall the decision regarding the rejection of the candidature of the applicant and further directing them to allow the applicant to appear in medical examination as per his merit position with all consequential benefits within the stipulated period as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
(ii) Anorder / direction upon the respondents to appoint the applicant in any group 'D' Post after conducting his medical test.
{iv) An order / direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal thereby initiating contempt action against the respondents as they have deliberately violated the order dated 04.07.2019 passed in O.A. no. 1808 / 2017 in order to defeat the said order and to deny the same appointment to the applicant who comes from a poor family.
(v) An order directing the respondents to produce the entire records of the case at the time of adjudication for conscionable justice.
(vi) Any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant in an earlier round of litigation in O.A. No. 350/01808/2017 dated 4.7.2019 has held as under:-
"7, We perused the applicant's application form annexed at Alto the reply as well as to the O.A. and we note that as the applicant had recorded his signature in capital letters, his application should have been treated as void ab initio.and he should not have been issued any call letter to appear at the written examination or to appear in follow up stages of PET or document verification. Su:prisingly, the respondents have proceeded to invite the applicant thrqugh all these stages despite the fact that his application was void ab initio and there is no explanation on behalf of the respondents as to how an applicant submitting an invalid application was allowed to proceed upto the stage of document verification and purportedly declared successful at each stage. The respondents would take shelter in Para 7.5 of their notification which states that admission of the candidate at all stages of OND
3 0.a. 1379.2019 recruitment will be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions and since Para 9.8, which calls for the correctness of signature is indeed a prescribed condition, the applicant's case has been aborted at the stage of medical examination.
8. The conventional function of a signature is to permanently affix to a document a person's uniquely personal, undeniable self-identification which is an evidence to that individual's personal witness and certification to the content of the documents.
It has to be, therefore, in a form which stands testimony to the calligraphic evidence of an individual's unique identification. It is perhaps as a measure of abundant caution and to ensure unique identification, that the respondent authorities may have insisted that all applicants sign in running handwriting.
As per law, one can sign in capital letters. Signature being one's exclusive domain, signing in any language and any form is a matter of individual choice. Consequently, the applicant is justified in stating invalidity of signature recorded in capital letters is not a legal contention. At the same time, however, we find that the applicant has not challenged Para 9.8 of the notification which had mandated him net to sign in capital letters and had ruled that signing in capital letters would render his application invalid.
Accordingly, given the fact that the notification of the respondent authorities is not under challenge, the applicant is bound by the provisions therein.
8. Therefore, we would hesitate to intervene in the contention of the respondents that the applicant's candidature was rendered invalid for violation of the provision 9.8 of the notification. At the same time, we would hold that the respondent authorities, instead of rejecting his candidature ab-initio, should not have allowed him to proceed through various stages of the recruitment process and this indicates a serious lapse on the part of the respondent authorities.
9, In our considered view, the lapses of the respondent authorities should not deprive the applicant of his legitimate aspiratiors, having qualified in earlier stages of the recruitment process. Hence, we allow the applicant liberty to pray for an opportunity for appearing at the medical examination within three weeks of receipt of a copy of this order and remand this matter back to the Respondent No.2, namely, the Chairman, (Rectt.), Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata, to consider as per Rules, the prayer of the applicant for medical examination, if so preferred, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
With these directions, this O.A. is disposed of. No costs."
3. He impugns the subsequent Office Order dated 4.9.2019 (Annexure A-11) wherein contrary to the aforesaid directions as herein mentioned are, the following observation has been made in the speaking order:-
ane
4 0.a. 1379.2019 "No SER/P-HQ/RRC/565/MA.1015&0A.1808/2017 Dated:04.09.2019 To Sri Niranjan Kumar Ranjan, S/o Krishan Deo Poc'der, C/o Chandradeo Poddar, Vill &PO: Sudhrid Nagar, Dist: Begusarai, Bihar, Pin-851218.
SUB: Hon'ble CAT/CAL's Order(Oral) dated: 04.07.2019 in OA No. 350/01808/2017 and MA No:350/1015/2017.
The Hon'ble CAT/CAL while disposing the above OA and MA filed by you have directed the following:-
"Hence we allow the applicant liberty to pray for an opportunity for appearing at the medical examination within three weeks of receipt of a copy of this order and remand this matter back to the Respondent No 2, namely, the Chairman (Rectt), Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata, to consider as per Rules, the prayer of the applicant for medical examination, if so preferred, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation."
In obedience to Hon'ble CAT/CAL's above direction, the undersigned being working as SPO/RRC against the post of Chairman/ Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway have gone through your representation dated: 22.08.2019 addressed to the respondent authorities as well as in consonance with the extant rules in force, it is stated as follows:-
You have applied for recruitment to Gr. D post against E.N No. SER/RRC/2/2010 dated 15.12.2010 and appeared 'in the written examination. On coming out successful in the written examination, you were called for PET and thereafter called for attending Document Verification. At the time of Document Verification, it was observed that you have put your signature in capital letters in your application form and as such your candidature was rejected as per provisions contained in para-9.8 of the Notification.
You are well aware about the provisions governing rejection of your candidature and you were also intimated about the facts which were narrated in a well reasoned speaking order issued earlier vide this office letter No SER/P-HQ/Rect(RRC)/OA No:350/843 of 2015 dated:
15.09.2015, in obedience to Hon'ble CAT/CAL's earlier order dated 07.07.2015 in OA No: 843/2015 by the Respondent No:2, i.e Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata. You choose to challenge the said speaking order belatedly, after a lapse of more than 3 years by filing this instant MA as well as this OA before the Hon'ble CAT/CAL.
However on a thorough examination of your case, it is observed that you have put your signature in capital letters in your application form, whereas you have put your signature in running letters in your representation dated: 22.08.2019 as well as in the MA and OA filed by you. From this it is clear that your signature put on various papers in RIO 5 0.a. 1379.2019 different forms and such signature put differently cannot be verified that to be of your own signature.
In connection with affixing of signature by an individual, the Hon'ble CAT in their above order at para-8 clearly observed the following: -
"The conventional function of a signature is to permanently affix to a document a person's uniquely personal, undeniable self-identification which is an evidence to that individuals personal witness and certification to the content of the documents.
It has to be, therefore, in a form which stands testimony to the calligraphic evidence of an individual's unique identification. It is perhaps as a measure of abundant caution and to ensure unique identification, that the respondent authorities may have insisted that all applicants sign in running handwriting.
As per law, one can sign in capital letters. Signature being one's exclusive domain, signing in any language and any form is a matter of individual choice. Consequently, the applicant is justified in stating invalidity of signature recorded in capital letters is not a legal contention. At the same time, however, we find that the applicant has not challenged Paro-9.8 of the notification which had mandated him not to sign in capital letters and had ruled that signing in capital letters would render his application invalid.
Accordingly, given the fact that the notification of the respondent authorities is not under challenge, the applicant is bound by the provisions therein."
In the light of the Hon'ble CAT's above observations it is crystal clear that the respondents are well within the ambit of law in rejecting your candidature as per provisions contained in Para-9.8 of the Employment Notification and entertaining a candidate who had deliberately violated the provisions of the notification would certainly open room for consideration of a huge number of applicants whose candidature were rejected for one reason or the other, defeating the very purpose of stipulating such a clauses in the notification.
In the circumstances explained above, it is not feasible to consider your candidature at this stage as you have violated the provisions contained in the Notification by affixing your signature in capital letters in your application form and your contention that you have qualified in written as well as PET and you should be allowed to appear in medical examination is not teneable as per law, as para-7.5 of the notification clearly states that admission of the candidate at all stages of recruitment will be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions.
This disposes of your representation dated: 22.08.2019 addressed to the respondent authorities as per Hon'ble CAT/CAL's direction dated:
- 04.07.2019, Sd/-
S. Chaudhuri Sr. Personnel Officer/RRC"
4, Ld. Counsel for the applicant would contend that same runs letter and spirit of the order where directions were issued to the respondents to examine the applicant herein. However, to the contrary, the impugned NY
6 0.a. 1379.2019 order has entirely set up a new case against the applicant inasmuch as the representation has been rejected by the speaking order on the same grounds without complying with the directions of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation.
5. Per contra, opposing the O.A., Ld. Counsel for the respondents would argue that the terms and conditions are synchronising and strictly complied with even though there are no CFSL or expert opinion but the terms and conditions are binding upon both the parties, and, as such, the orders passed by the competent authority is reasoned and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement as well as Recruitment Rules.
Ld. Counsel states that they have followed in letter and spirit the order in the earlier round of litigation. He specifically draws attention to para 9 of the order where the directions were only to consider his application for medical examination. There was no specific direction by the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation that necessarily he has to be allowed for examination.
6. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. We have carefully examined each and every word of the Order dated 4.7,2019 passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, most specifically, para 9.
8. We find that what the Hon'ble Tribunal meant was to take a holistic view in the matter and not just consider the case for medical examination inasmuch as the applicant had already qualified for written test and PET. The only requirement was that he was to be offered an opportunity for medical examination. The impugned order is silent on the aspect whether medical examination conducted or not. What the impugned order has in fact done has set the clock back. By reiterating as por 7 0.a. 1379.2019 their earlier stand of rejection of the candidature in terms and condition in terms of para 7.5 of the notification. The competent authority was not supposed to act in the manner as dealt with by them in the impugned order thinking by misinterpreting the order which was passed by this Tribunal, |
9. We also take notice of the fact that since there is no allegation of malafide, arbitrariness or otherwise forgery or impersonation till date, no steps were taken by the respondent department to verify qua the signature either in running form or capital letter and for that matter referring the matter to Government Examiner/CFSL.
10. Be that as it may, since no such allegations have been averred qua the identity of the applicant is not in dispute as held by the Hon'ble High Court in Ajay Kumar Misra in W.P.(Ci 11642/2015 dated 23 * December, 2016 that signing in capital letters are in minor nature:-
"15. As observed above, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner derived any advantage by entering the wrong date of birth in his online and application. There is a difference between a mere inadvertent error and misrepresentation or suppression. There could be no __ intentional misrepresentation as the school certificate was submitted. The penalisation of cancellation of the candidature on the ground of a typographical error is arbitrary, unreasonable harsh and disproportionate to its gravity of the lapse. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the pending application also stands disposed of. The impugned order is set aside."
11. It is not in dispute that the terms and conditions are sacrosanct. No divergent view can be taken by this Tribunal to the Order dated 4,7.2019 in earlier round of litigation and we deem it proper and fit to allow this O.A. with the following directions:-
(a) We direct the respondent authority to conduct the medical examination of the applicant by the medical board within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(b} In the event, the applicant is found otherwise eligible and is medically fit, the respondent authority shall issue appropriate offer aby?
8 0.a. 1379.2019 of appointment within 45 days from the date of receipt of the report from the medical board.
12. We make it clear that the applicant shall be entitled to consequential relief on notional basis only and shall not be entitled to claim any seniority.
We further make it clear that actual consequential benefit shall accrue to the applicant on the date of assumption of charge, if he is selected.
The above exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
13. With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
cma eet oat oo 1 2 8Y ' . a .
) (Anindo Majunidar) (Manish Garg) Member (A) . Member (J) sp