Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak vs M/O Railways on 20 January, 2025
1
Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 3449/2016
Reserved on :09.01.2025
Pronounced on : 20.01.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Deepak
Roll No. 1244440,
Group 'D', S/o. Sh. Om Prakash,
Vill. Rurkee,
Tehsil & Distt.- Rohtak,
Haryana - 124 426. ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell
Through Assistance Personnel Officer, RRC
Northern Railway,
Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi 110024.
3. General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Head Quarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
2
Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant Mr. Deepak under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. Direct the respondents to clear the status of the applicant pending on account of "Candidate's case paper has been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules" and thereby grant appointment to the applicant on the appropriate post pursuant to the marks obtained by him alongwith all benefits and allowances, with retrospective effect from the date of withholding of candidature;
b. Pass any such other and further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. The conspectus of the case as per the learned counsel of the applicant is that in response to employment notification issued by Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway on 17.12.2010 to fill up various post in Pay Band-I of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/-, the applicant being eligible duly applied for the same under Unreserved category. The written examination was conducted in 2012 wherein he participated. Being successful, he was subjected to Physical verification and thereafter was called for documents verification scheduled on 17.12.2012, where he submitted all the requisite documents. After which his medical examination was conducted wherein he was successful. However, his result status shows that 'Candidate's case paper has been recommended by 3 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 screening committee for further detailed examination or ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules' which was without giving any detailed reason or justification for the same. Aggrieved, he approached the authorities to seek response on why his candidature has been kept pending while result of others have been announced. Responding to his quarry, the respondents verbally told him that his result will be declared shortly and he would receive the appointment letter as he has cleared all the formalities. In spite of various personal visits his grievance could not be redressed. Moreover, the representations made by him were also unanswered. His status remained as it is while his counterparts have been given appointment or are in the process of appointment. Unsatisfied with the non-action of the respondents to appoint him, the applicant has filed this OA.
3. The learned counsel of the applicant argued on the following grounds :-
"3.1 The Applicant herein has been a meritorious student all through his career and in the present case also, had meritoriously and successfully cleared all the exams, tests and formalities for appointment, i.e., cleared the written examination, physical verification test, submitted all the required documents for verification, and even the medical test post clearing which, the respondents should issue the Appointment Letter to the Applicant but despite that the Respondents have not issued the 4 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 Appointment letter to the Applicant and have kept the status pending as "Candidate's case paper has been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or Ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules" without any basis or reason. It is submitted that the act of the Respondent keeping the status pending for further detailed examination and delaying the Appointment of the Applicant without any reason is bad in the eyes of law as the respondents have nothing to show on record which calls for further detailed examination of the case paper of the applicant and the applicant has cleared all the examinations in the recruitment process upon his caliber and merits. 3.2 The Respondents have also failed to reply the written representation dated 05.03.2015 made by the Applicant seeking clarification for pendency of his candidature. The applicant has even after the written representation approached the respondents on many occasions but the respondents refuse to entertain the plea of the applicant or to assign any reason for keeping the status of the applicant as "Candidate's case paper has been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or Ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules".
3.3 The Respondents have grossly failed to address the grievance of the Applicant and have erred in keeping the candidature for Appointment of the Applicant as "Candidate's case paper has 5 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or Ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules" status without assigning any reason or clarification for the same. 3.4 The respondents have acted in contravention of the principles of natural justice by denying and keeping the status of the applicant pending as, "Candidate's case paper has been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or Ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules", In an arbitrary manner, without assigning any justifiable reason for the same, whereas, the other candidates who qualified with the Applicant have been appointed and posted or are in the process of appointment and therefore the Applicant is suffering huge losses in his career. It is submitted that the Respondents are bound to adopt a fair and transparent process of appointment to ensure equal opportunity to all the candidates, however the said transparent process seems not to be adopted by the Respondents in the present case and the Respondents are shying away to assign any reason or address the grievance of the Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
3.5 The candidature of the other candidates is being considered and the Applicant who has successfully cleared all the required formalities is being denied appointment in an arbitrary manner. The Respondents are bound by the terms of the Employment 6 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 Notice dt. 17.12.2010 and any conduct in contravention of the same is liable to be struck down being violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3.6 The respondents have now removed the status of Petitioner's candidature from the website despite giving assurances to wait, meaning thereby that the respondents will now take no further action on the status or grievance of the applicant and the status of the applicant will remain as "Candidate's case paper has been recommended by Screening Committee for further detailed examination or Ineligible as per RRC/NR rectt rules" which tantamounts to cancellation of the candidature of the applicant thereby giving no opportunity to be heard to the applicant and have further failed to point out any substance or clarification on the basis of which the Appointment of the Applicant has been kept pending, whereas the candidature of his counter parts are being already appointed. It is thus submitted that the pendency of the Appointment of the Applicant is a gross illegality which is completely untenable in the eyes of law."
4. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in UOI Through its Secretary & Ors. vs. Rupesh Kumar Jha & Ors. - 7 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 WP (C) No. 12354/2023 dated 29.02.2024. The relevant paras of which are quoted below :-
"5. After the results of the Tier-II examination were declared, the respondents realised that they had been awarded zero marks on account of their not having signed the answer sheets. Since it was the respondents' case that they had, during the exam, duly signed the attendance sheet as also the declaration form besides affixing their thumb impressions on the opening page of their respective answer sheets, they approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No.4005/2017. The OA, as noted hereinabove, has been allowed by the learned Tribunal by inter alia holding that the inadvertent lapse on the part of the respondents in not appending their signatures on the opening page of the answer sheets could not be treated as a fatal mistake. While allowing the OA, the learned Tribunal took into account that though the respondents had not signed the opening page of their answer sheets, they had duly affixed their signatures at two different places i.e. on the attendance sheet and the declaration form besides affixing their thumb impressions on the opening sheets during the examination itself and therefore, their identity could not be doubted. Being aggrieved, the present petitions have been filed.
13. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the failure on the part of the respondents in not affixing their signatures on the opening page of the answer sheets was so grave so as to warrant cancellation of their candidature. In the facts of the present case, when they had already signed on two different places during the course of the very same exam, the lapse on the part of the respondents is in our view a trivial one, which did not play any part in the selection process. Further, taking into account the admitted position that the respondents had, during the same exam, appended their signatures on the attendance sheet as also on the declaration form and had also affixed their thumb impression on the opening page of the answer sheet, we fail to appreciate that how their identity can be said to be under any doubt. We also find that ever otherwise the learned Tribunal has opined and in our view rightly so, that once the thumb impressions of the respondents were available on their answer sheets, there could not be any doubt about their identity. We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the Learned Tribunal that the mistake on the part of the respondents was a trivial mistake, for which they should not be penalised. 8 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016
18. We are also in agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal that even though the opening page of the answer sheets were not signed by the respondents, the answer sheets were duly accepted by the invigilators without noticing that they were unsigned. In fact, the petitioners have no justification as to why the invigilators, who had themselves signed on these very opening sheets, did not notice the omission by the respondents at the time of the examination and as to why they accepted the answer sheets without directing them to sign on the same before permitting them to leave the examination centre. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the future of young candidates who, perhaps on account of the anxiety to appear in such a competitive exam and the requirement to sign at multiple places, inadvertently omitted to sign the opening sheet where they duly affixed their thumb impression. This lapse on part of these young candidates has to be seen in the context of the requirement to sign at the multiple places during the exam when the candidates are already under stress as also the fact that the answer sheets without their signatures at the opening page were duly accepted by the invigilators. It would, therefore, not be incorrect to say that if there was a lapse on part of the candidates, there was an equal or if not greater lapse on the part of the invigilators as well, who were duty bound to ensure that only properly filled answer sheets are accepted." Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 10205/2019 - Dinesh Kumar Meena vs. UOI dated 09.09.2022 wherein it has been held that 'No forensic opinion with respect to thumb impression, OMR Sheet and Application be sent to CFSL, Rohini for rendering an opinion on thumb impression as well as handwriting and signature of the applicant'. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that his case is similar to that of the one already decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 3628/2013 on 09.11.2021 in Dev Dutt vs. UOI (GM-Northern Railway). Wherein, the documents such as OMR Sheet of the 9 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 applicant, the application form submitted by him at the initial stage and his signature were sent to the CFSL for examination.
5. The learned counsel of the respondents opposed the OA on the following grounds :-
5.1 In pursuance of Employment Notification No. 220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2010 dated 17/12/2010, a recruitment process to fill up 11439 vacancies in Pay Band-I Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 1800/-
Group "D' Post was initiated. In the said notification detailed information for the candidates was given. Notification clearly stipulated that candidate should fill up the application form in his / her own hand writing in Para 5 with detail information on how to apply, general conditions and invalid applications etc. with specific information that mere selection and empanelment does not confer any right of appointment to the candidate. It was also specifically mentioned on the application at column No. 15 that candidate has to copy the given declaration in his own handwriting but not in capital letters in the given space on the application form.
5.2 It was further clearly stipulated on the OMR sheet to be filled by candidate during the written examination that candidate has to copy in his own running handwriting the paragraph in column 5 as given on the answer booklet. Further, another sample of 10 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 handwriting of the shortlisted candidate was to be taken at the time of document verification before the Committee of three Railway Officers. Admission of the candidate at all stages of recruitment was purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions.
5.3 The Applicant herein, Sh. Deepak, applied and was allowed to appear in written examination and was called for document verification and Medical Examination with clear stipulation that calling of candidates for document verification does not automatically confer any right upon candidates for their Medical Examination or their appointment on any post of Northern Railway.
5.4 During scrutiny before a committee of three Railway officers at the time of document verification, on being questioned for mismatch in handwriting on relevant papers, it was admitted by the candidate in writing that application was not filled by him and accordingly case was rejected by the competent authority, i.e., Chairman/RRC on the basis of statement given by candidate (applicant herein) for violation of examination conditions and status uploaded on RRC website for information of the Candidates as already notified in the Employment Notification, i.e. Candidates are advised to remain in touch with RRC Website which will be primary source of communication with the 11 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 Candidates. A copy of admission of the candidate is enclosed as Annexure-R-1. Moreover, not only this recruitment notified in the year 2010 but subsequent recruitment notified in the year 2012 & 2013 also stands closed on date.
6. To support his case, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-
'(i) In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that 'natural justice is not an unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of'.
(ii) In Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (1994) 4 SCC 328, this Court held that 'the principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement the law'.
(iii) In Syndicate Bank & Ors. vs. Venaktesh Gururao Kurati JT (2006) 2 SC 73, it was held 'to sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of 12 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 principles of natural justice'.
(iv) In Shankarsan Das vs. UOI AIR 1991 SC 1612 wherein it has been ruled that 'merely because the candidates' name appears in the select list, he/she does not get indefeasible right to get appointment'.
(v) In T. Jay Kumar vs. A. Gopu & Anr., JT 2008 (10) SC 530;
(vi) Union of India vs. Sarwan Ram & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 9388 of 2014 and
(vii) Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported as 2006(II) SC 709.' It is further argued that the issue of rejection of candidature for violation of examination rules is no more res integra since it stands settled by a decision dated 01.05.2012 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1181 of 2012 and order dated 02.07.14/09.07.14 in OA No.1355/HR/2013 by Chandigarh bench and order dated 30.05.2016 in OA No.1966/2015 in Ram Singh Rajppot vs. GM/NR & Others of this Tribunal. It is also submitted that whether a candidate can violate the rules/instructions/guidelines on conduct of examination has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9388/2014 vide its order dated 08/10/2014 - UOI & Anr. vs. Sarwan Ram & Anr (supra). In its order dated 08.10.2014 the Hon'ble Apex Court in last two paras of its judgment held as under:-
"Condition No. 8.7(i) is one of the conditions mandate mentioned in the employment notice. We are of the 13 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 view that in non- compliance of such condition, it was always open to the competent authority to reject such application being incomplete. Respondent no. 1 having failed to do so, the competent authority has rightly rejected the application. In such circumstances, it was not open to the High Court to direct the authorities to consider the case of respondent no.1 for appointment, sitting in appeal over the scrutiny of application by referring to certain certificate of length of service. High court under Article 226 of the constitution of India is not competent to scrutinize the applications filed for appointment and cannot substitute its own opinion based on some evidence to come to a conclusion whether the application form is defective.
In view of the reason recorded above, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 28th May, 2013 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil writ Petition No. 13032 of 2011.
The appeal is allowed no cost."
7. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has successfully cleared all the formalities, despite which his candidature has been rejected on the alleged ground of mismatch in writing/signature, whereas the thumb impression have been completely overlooked without any just cause. Moreover, he has signed and attested the application form which is a clear proof that there is no persuasion and no illegality done by him. To support his claim, the applicant relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar Meena vs. UOI & Ors. - W.P.
(c) No. 10205/2019 dated 09.09.2022 where the judgment delivered was as follows :-
"1. Original record has been produced. Perusal of the original record prima facie shows that handwriting on the 14 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 OMR sheet as well as application form is of the same individual though there is an opinion annexed which states that handwriting does not match.
2. Prima facie, we are not in agreement with the opinion. It is, however, observed that the application form as well as OMR sheet, both contain thumb impression. There is no forensic opinion with regard to the thumb impression.
3. Accordingly, it is directed that OMR sheet as well as application form be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini for rendering an opinion on the thumb impression as well as the handwriting and signatures of the applicant contained therein.
4. Respondents are accordingly directed to send the same to the CFSL for rendering an opinion. Director, CFSL is requested to expedite the examination and submit a report to the Court, before the next date of hearing.
5. List on 23.01.2023."
8. Heard the learned counsel of both sides ; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments and decisions of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal; Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. We have taken note that in WP (C) No. 6256/2019 & CM Appl No. 26790/2019 - Sombir vs. Staff Selection Commission and another, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has allowed the petition vide its order dated 12.10.2022. We have also taken note that in the decision of our Coordinate Bench in OA No. 3628/2013 - Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (through General Manager - Northern Railways) in its decision dated 09.11.2021 had mentioned vide paras 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment states that :-
"6. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that in the case of Sombir (supra) this Tribunal relying on the 15 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 opinion of expert body, i.e. CFSL dismissed the OA on the ground of mismatch between his signature on different documents. However, the Hon'ble High Court stayed the order of the Tribunal vide its order dated 29.05.2019 and observed that CFSL's opinion was cryptic in nature and should not have formed basis of rejection of the OA by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that in another case titled Parveen vs. Union of India and ors., WP (C) No.2975/2021 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 05.03.2021 took a prima facie view that merely on the basis of report of CFSL, the harsh action of revocation of appointment could not have been taken. Therein, the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2021 had dismissed the OA seeking reinstatement in service on the ground that CFSL found discrepancies in applicant's signatures.
10. The grievance raised before this Tribunal is that the applicant is not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of the opinion of the so called expert. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that it would meet the ends of justice if the documents annexures R-1 to R-3 be sent to the CFSL for examination by the Railway authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. On receipt of the request of the Railway authority, the CFSL shall give their report in this regard within a period of six weeks thereafter to the Railway authority, on the basis of which the Railway authority shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant in Group-D post.
11. With the above observation, the OA stands disposed of.
12. Accordingly, MA No.3018/2021 also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
10. In the light of the above decision and now that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has given its clear judgments in :-
(i) Dinesh Kumar Meena vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) and
(ii) Sombir vs. Staff Selection Commission and another (supra) 16 Item No. 24 (C-4) OA 3449/2016 the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicant.
11. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice in the instant OA would be met if the respondents are directed to send the Answer Sheet of the applicant, the application form submitted by him at the initial stage, his signature, his Left Thumb Impression (LTI) and his Photograph to the CFSL for examination within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receipt of the request of the Railway Authority, CFSL shall give their report in this regard. On the basis of the report of the CFSL, the respondents shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant for the post in question.
12. With the above directions, the instant OA stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/