Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Dhani Ram vs General Manager N C Rly on 27 November, 2025
O.A./1399/2014
(Reserved on 24.11.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1399 of 2014
th
Pronounced on this the 27 Day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Dhani Ram S/o Ram Singh Yadav, R/o Village and Post Soraon, Police
Station Sarai Mamrej, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Abhishek Agarwal having authorization
letter by Shri Satyajit Mukherji
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
3. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
4. The Assistant Personal Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Central Railway, Allahabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Atul Kumar Shahi
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) Issue an order or direction calling for the records of the case and quash the letters/orders dated 26.08.2014 and 04.09.2014 issued by the Respondents (attached as Annexure Nos 11 & 12 to the First compilation).
(ii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the applicant and he may be permitted to join on Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 1 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 a Group-D post with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation.
(iii) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to grant the benefits along with arrears of pay and interest thereon at the rate of 12%.
(iv) Issues any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Award costs in favour of the applicant. "
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant applied for appointment on a group 'D' post in response to the advertisement No.1/2012, dated 15.08.2012 published in 'Rozgar Prakash' by the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad. He was issued an admit card and the applicant participated in the written examination held on 08.12.2013 which he passed and appeared for the physical ability test on 07.03.2014 in which also he qualified and was called for the medical examination held on 30.04.2014. Thereafter, the applicant found out through the internet that his candidature had been cancelled. Then the applicant moved a representation dated 09.06.2014 addressed to the President/Deputy Chief Personnel Officer- Recruitment, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad through registered post and when no reply was received the applicant filed an O.A. No./779/2014 which was disposed of on 24.06.2014 with the direction to decide the fresh representation to be moved by the applicant. Thereafter, while the applicant had filed a contempt application also, he got two letters, one dated 26.08.2014 and another 04.09.2014. The letter dated 26.08.2014 said that the respondents had referred the case of the applicant to the forensic expert which confirmed that the signature on the application form, O.M.R./answer sheet and hand writing sample were of different persons and based on the said report the respondents came to the conclusion that somebody else appeared on behalf of the applicant in the written examination. The letter also alleges that a show cause notice dated 20.06.2014 was served to the applicant and he was required to file his reply by 20.07.2014 and that the applicant had failed to file his reply within Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 2 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 the stipulated period and in view of the same, the competent authority had decided to cancel the applicant's candidature for the Group 'D' post and also debarred him from all R.R.C/R.R.B. examinations for appointment in railways for lifetime. The letter dated 26.08.2014 was amended vide letter dated 04.09.2014 and it the said letter, it has only been alleged that although the applicant was found suitable to be called for document verification on the basis of the written examination and the physical efficiency test, however, while going through the verification of documents it was observed that the applicant did not adhere to the instructions endorsed on the O.M.R. sheet and he has failed to put his signature on the O.M.R. sheet and because of this, his candidature has been cancelled. It was also mentioned that inadvertently the applicant had been debarred for lifetime by the R.R.C. alongwith other candidates, however, his debarment for all R.R.C/R.R.B. examinations had been withdrawn and his candidature for this examination only had been cancelled.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant was declared successful in the written examination in which the answer-sheet consisted of a single page known as the 'O.M.R. Sheet'. This O.M.R. Sheet must ideally contain the signature and thumb impression of every candidate and it is the duty of the invigilator to ensure that the candidate appearing in the examination has put his thumb impression as well as the signature on the said O.M.R. sheet. Only after ensuring that the candidate has put his thumb impression and signature on the O.M.R. sheet, will the invigilator affix his signature on the said O.M.R. sheet. In the instant case it appears that the applicant, due to the pressure of the examination, had failed to affix his signature on the O.M.R. sheet, however, he had put-in his thumb impression on the said O.M.R. sheet and the invigilator who had failed to notice that the signature was missing, put his counter signature on the said O.M.R. sheet. This technical mistake was neither noticed by the respondents nor was the same cross-checked from the original call Digitally signed by letter for written examination and the verification sheet which MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 remained with the respondents and which contained the photograph, thumb impression and the signature of the applicant. Hence he was called for the physical ability test on 7/03/2014. The applicant was declared successful in the physical ability test also and therefore, he was called for the attestation of his certificates and medical examination scheduled to be held on 30/04/2014. The applicant was never informed about the position in the final select list. The applicant had personally appeared in all the examinations and on every date it was ensured that no other person appeared on behalf of the original candidates.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the system evolved by the examination cell was fool-proof and there was no scope for impersonation. It is again clarified that there are two parts of the attendance slip. The first part of the attendance slip is the call letter for written examination which contains the attested photograph and the signature both in English and Hindi of the candidate. The second part is the attendance slip which contains the photograph and the attested signature of the candidate. The first part -call letter for written examination is withheld by the respondents and the counter-foil (attendance slip) containing the photograph and signature (both of which have been attested by the respondents) is given to the applicant and on production of the same the applicant is permitted to appear in the examination centre. Once the applicant has entered in the examination centre the attendance slip -counter foil produced by the candidate is cross checked from the original call letter which is produced by the invigilator. After the invigilator is satisfied that the candidate producing the counter foil/attendance slip is the same person and he is having the counter foil of the original call letter which the invigilator was having, the invigilator asks the candidate to put-in his thumb impression and signature on the O.M.R. sheet. After the candidate has done so, the invigilator counter signs on the O.M.R. sheet. Apart from this, there is also an Attendance/Verification Sheet which the invigilator has in his possession. This Digitally signed by attendance/verification sheet contains the photograph and name of MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 the candidate. The candidate also has to put-in his signature and thumb impression on the attendance/verification sheet as well. This attendance sheet shows the serial in which the candidates have been seated in the examination centre. It is, therefore, submitted that the system of the examination was such that it was actually not possible for someone to impersonate as has been wrongly alleged.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant actually did not indulge in impersonation. Impersonation also comes under the category of using unfair means and the law on the subject is very clear. A show cause notice was required to be issued and the reply of the applicant should have been called for, only thereafter, the examination cell could have passed the order. In the instant case neither any show cause notice was issued to the applicant nor his reply was called for. Thus, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. In such a situation, the order canceling the applicant's candidature on the ground of impersonation cannot be sustained. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Binit Chandan Vs. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Allahabad, 2007 (66) A.L.R. 8 (Summary) and Deepak Srivastava Vs. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Allahabad and others, 2007 (66) A.L.R.29 (Summary).
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that it is settled law that passing of a reasoned and speaking order is a pre-requisite before the candidature of an examinee is cancelled. In the instant case since no show cause notice was issued hence, the applicant could not file any reply which could be considered by the respondents before passing the impugned order of cancellation of the applicant's candidature on the ground of impersonation. In such a situation, the cancellation of the candidature of the applicant cannot be sustained. The allegation that the applicant did not adhere to the instruction endorsed on the O.M.R. sheet and did not put his signature on the O.M.R. sheet can at best be termed as a careless mistake regarding which the Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 law has already been settled and it has been provided in the pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court that mere technical/careless mistakes cannot be made the basis for canceling the candidature of the candidate.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has made the averment that the applicant did not adhere to the instructions endorsed on the OMR sheet and did not put his signature on the OMR (answer sheet) in column no.12 as per the instructions provided in the back of the OMR sheet, accordingly, his candidature has been cancelled vide the letter dated 201.06.2014.
8. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
9. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has also produced certain case laws in his support. In Priyanka Kumar vs Jharkhand Academic Counsel & Anr (W.P. (C) No.5198 of 2013) [213:JHHC:13360], in which case also the petitioner's result was not published because she failed to put her signature in the OMR sheet and the applicant had claimed that it was a mere technical ground as her identity could also be verified from the counter foil of the Admit Card and the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi had directed the Chairman, JAC to consider the petitioner's representation ignoring the trifling defect/technicality and pass appropriate order within a stipulated time. The applicant has also relied on the case of Sachin Agarwal (Minor) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [1999 AIR (All) 157] wherein the petitioner's result was cancelled as he was alleged to have indulged in unfair means and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held that "In the instant case, the question of inflicting punishment of cancellation of result did not arise as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had adopted unfair means in writing answer to question No.3-Ga, above. The impugned order dated 6.12.1997 cancelling the result of the petitioner has, therefore, to be quashed." The case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Suneel Kumar [AIRONLINE 2021 Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 DEL 1907] is regarding cancellation of candidature on mismatch of signature which is different from the facts of this case. In O.A. No./289/2017 (Rakesh Kumar vs. General Manager Northern Railway and ors.) decided on 10.11.2023, the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, taking parity with other similar cases, had quashed the impugned order that cancelled the candidature of the applicant on the ground of violating an instruction in the OMR sheet as per which the bubble once darkened was not allowed to be erased with a blade or fluid. The applicant has also placed reliance on the judgement of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A./1469/2016 (Mahendra Kumar Pal vs. UOI & ors) decided on 08.07.2024, wherein the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the applicant on the allegation of violating the instruction in the OMR sheet was set aside relying on the case laws cited by the applicant in the cases of (i) Vipin Kumar Tiwari & Another Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 24535 of 2017 on 30.4.2019 ; (ii) Kumkum Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 54845 of 2014 on 3.11.2020 and (iii) Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Others decided by CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 190 of 2014 on 12.2.2021. The relevant quotations from the aforesaid order is being reproduced below:-
10. In the case of Dharm Veer Singh (supra), this Tribunal has held as under:-
"The OMR sheet was produced in the Tribunal and the copy of same has been placed on record. The OMR sheet of applicant shows that in question No. 148, the applicant has marked two options in the given answer. Condition No. 10 of the instructions issued by respondents are very clear that 1/3rd of the allotted mark will be deducted for every wrong answer/multiple answer. This is the procedure which should have been followed by the respondents rather than cancelling the candidature of applicant.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 8.7.2014 (Annexure No. 5) passed by respondents is set aside to the extent of disallowing the candidature of applicant for tempering with the OMR sheet. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of applicant for appointment to Group 'D' post in accordance with rules and regulations within a period of Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 7 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 one month from the date of receipt of this order. O.A. is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs."
11. In the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharm Veer Singh, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:-
"A perusal of the OMR sheet at page no. '101' indicates that the respondent candidate had given two answers to question no. '148', thus, the options B and D had been circled by the candidate. In the said scenario, only option left to the petitioners was to cancel the said question i.e. not to allot any marks for the said answer and further to deduct 1/3rd mark for giving multiple answers, as per the Clause-'10' of the instructions noted above. We may also note that the original record was also produced before the Tribunal and on perusal thereof, the Tribunal had noted condition no. '10' of the instructions and opined that it was not a case of tampering of the OMR sheet.
The opinion of the Tribunal to set aside the decision of the petitioners rejecting the candidature of the applicant/respondent on the ground of tempering with the OMR sheet, is found justified inasmuch as, there is no evidence of tempering of OMR sheet by the candidate. The multiple answers given by the candidate at the time of filling up of OMR sheet during the course of examination will not come within the meaning of 'tampering' as asserted by the Counsel for the petitioners. No infirmity can be found in the order of the Tribunal.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
12. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Tiwari & Another (supra) has held as under:-
"As noted above, Sri Rai learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the marks which were awarded to the petitioners as well as the fact that they successfully completed all the steps of the recruitment process. Their names have admittedly been excluded from the final selection list only consequent to the manual examination of OMR sheets. Before this Court and as noted above, it is admitted to the respondents that both the petitioners have obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate included in the final select list as prepared by the respondents. Additionally the Court notes that the respondents while dealing with the case of another candidate namely Shreeram Meena have proceeded to hold that the incorrect mentioning of roll numbers on the OMR sheet is a 'minor technical error' and in the absence of any deliberate action on the part of a candidate such discrepancies were liable to be ignored. Dealing with the case of Shreeram Meena the respondents have observed thus:-
"From the available record, it is observed that all entries have been made by the petitioner in OMR sheet in his Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 8 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 own handwriting correctly. Though he has written the roll number numerically correct as 2141305179 but during shading of bubble he mistakenly shaded '0' in place of '9' which shows that the intention of the petitioner is not mala-fide. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of minor technical error which he had not done deliberately. Hon'ble Justice of High Court, Allahabad also observered, the mistake of the petitioner as 'minor technical error'.
Since he has written his roll number correctly in numerical form, therefore his case deserves to be considered; otherwise grave injustice will be committed towards him, if his candidature is rejected on the basis of wrong shadding of one numerical, which is minor in nature. Hence in the light of the above observations his appointment in RPF is considered."
The case of the petitioners stands on identical and equal footing. In view of the above, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the orders impugned.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 29 December 2016 and 20 February 2017 are hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the Competent Authority of the respondents, who according to Sri Rai is the respondent No.2 herein. The second respondent shall now proceed to finalise the candidature of the petitioners in light of the observations made hereinabove."
13. In another case namely in the case of Kumkum (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"It is undisputed that when the result was declared the petitioner was shown to be a selected/qualified candidate. Her candidature, however, has been ignored only because she is denied marks of question no.58. It is not in issue that petitioner has marked 'B' which is the correct answer of question no.58. Respondents have not disputed that 'B' is the correct answer. It is only on account of first impression caused against the option Neutral Citation No. - 2020:AHC:94824 'C' that the respondents infer that the petitioner had earlier marked 'C' as the right answer. The candidates were supposed to attempt one of the correct option in the OMR sheet. Such answer were to be scanned by computers. It is admitted that the computer scanned the petitioner's OMR sheet and awarded marks against question no.58 to the petitioner. At the time of scanning of OMR sheet by the computer the answer against question no.58 was not ignored for the reason that petitioner had earlier attempted to give a different answer against question no.58. Petitioner's result was also declared and she was found selected. There was no occasion for the respondents to manually check the answers later, so as to disqualify the petitioner. There is no express contemplation in the answersheet or the examination scheme which puts an embargo upon a Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 9 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 candidate from correcting her answer. Clause 9, which has been relied upon, of the instructions merely states that once an answer is given by the darkening circle any subsequent change would not be permissible. This contemplation appears to have been made only because in the event more than one answer is darkened the computer itself would exclude that question. In the facts of the present case this was not done and petitioner was awarded marks against question no.58. In the absence of any stipulation in the instructions the respondents would not be justified in manually correcting the answersheet once again, so as to deny marks against question no.58 to the petitioner. This would be particularly so, once the petitioner has already been declared selected and there was no stipulation that the copies of selected candidates would again be re-examined manually.
In that view of the matter this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider petitioner's claim for appointment by awarding her marks for question no.58 also on the basis of earlier scanning of OMR sheets. The requisite action would be taken within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Petitioner, however, will not be entitled to any salary etc. for the previous period and would be placed at the bottom of the seniority of the recruitment. The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order."
10. In the present case, the applicant's candidature has been rejected after he had been declared successful till the stage of medical examination on the ground that he did not follow the instruction in the OMR sheet. Instruction number 6 in the OMR Sheet reads that "....You must put your signature on OMR answer sheet at item no.13", which is actually item no.12 where the applicant's signature is required and then in para 13 it has been stated that "Failure to adhere to instructions above will render you OMR answer sheet as invalid and it will not be evaluated.". Perusal of the OMR sheet annexed in the O.A. shows that in columns 13 and 14, signature of the school and railway invigilators was to be put which has been done. However, the aforesaid invigilators were bound to put their signatures after verifying that the candidate has filled up the required information on OMR Sheet and has also put his/her signature in column no.12 above. The plea of the applicant Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 10 of 11 O.A./1399/2014 in the case is bona fide and the candidate could have skipped putting signature in the requisite column due to exam pressure. It was the duty of the invigilator to make sure that all the instructions had been fulfilled. Even the instructions have wrongly named the column in which the candidate has to put their signature as column no.13 which is actually 12, yet, a technical mistake made by the applicant becomes unpardonable. Such technical mistakes should not form the ground of jeopardizing the whole future of a candidate by rejecting their candidature itself. It is nowhere contested that there is any case of impersonation in the matter and, undisputedly, the applicant has himself appeared for the written examination.
11. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the present case and also looking at it in light of the various case laws cited above, the impugned orders dated 26.08.2014 and 04.09.2014 are liable to be quashed and are, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed with the further stages of appointment of the applicant and if he is found suitable, he should be given an appointment letter and the applicant should be permitted to join with seniority on the basis of his merit in the examination vis a vis other successful candidates without wages for the period when he has not worked. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally signed by
MADHU KUMARI
MADHU KUMARI
Page 11 of 11