Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs M/O Railways on 25 August, 2022
1
OA No. 359/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 359/2020
Order reserved on 05.08.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 25.08.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav,
aged about 26 years, R/o Village Post Baghawas,
Tehsil Renwal, District Jaipur.
9875124545.
....Applicant
Shri Sudhir Yadav, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Ajmer,
North Western Railway, Nehru Marg, Near
Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer-305028.
3. President, Railway Recruitment Cell, North
Western Railway, Opposite DRM Office, Power
House Road, Jaipur-302006.
.... Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- 2 OA No. 359/2020
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Original Application may kindly be accepted and allowed, and by an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 (Annex.A/1) passed by the respondents by which candidature of the petitioner for level 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix post has been rejected on the ground of putting his signatures in capital letters, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to call the applicant in the process for document verification and further direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on level 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix post as per merit of the applicant and preference of post submitted by him in the online application form along with all consequential benefits.
Any other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper under the fact and circumstances may be granted in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, is that the respondents had issued an Advertisement No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018 for filling up various posts in Level 1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix and applicant who belonged to OBC category had applied on-line application form for the said post as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment and put his thumb impression and signature in digital form. He was called for Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 22.10.2018 by issuing E-Call letter and in the said call letter, he signed when he appeared in the examination and his 3 OA No. 359/2020 thumb impression was also obtained at the Examination Centre. He has secured 74.14332 marks. After being successful, he was called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 27.03.2019 and applicant appeared for the same and was declared as qualified in the same. The respondents invited successful candidates for documents verification and after three rounds of documents verification when still some seats remained vacant in OBC category, then the respondents invited remaining successful candidates in fourth round of documents verification and in the fourth round of documents verification, cut off marks for OBC category was 73.86528. When applicant came to know that persons lower in merit than the applicant were called for documents verification in the fourth round, he submitted a representation on 20.07.2020 by post stating that he may be called for documents verification and medical test as he secured higher marks, but he was not replied. He then submitted an application under RTI seeking information that why he has not been called for documents verification in spite of securing higher marks and the same was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 27.07.2020, (Annexure A/1), stating that his candidature has been rejected on account of signing in capital letters in RRC 4 OA No. 359/2020 foil of CBT call letter, which is in violation of para 16.04 of the notification issued by the respondents. Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
In support of his arguments, applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & anr. vs. Neeraj Kumar & anr., dated 24.02.2012 as well as in Arif vs. Union of India and anr. and also CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Sh. Vinod Narmal vs. Ministry of Railways & anr., dated 16.03.2015. Applicant has also relied upon the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 274/2019). 3(a). After issue of notices, respondent nos. 1 & 3 have filed their reply stating that as per Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018 for recruitment of various posts in North Western Railways in Level-1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix, applications were invited on-line from eligible candidates. Applicant was thereafter issued an E-call 5 OA No. 359/2020 letter to appear in on-line Computer Based Test (CBT) held on 22.10.2018. He was declared successful in CBT and thereafter he was called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 27.03.2019 wherein he was declared successful. The CEN contained several instructions along with General and Important instructions, which all candidates were expected to read and comply with the same so that their candidature may not be rejected due to omission/mistakes on their part. As per para 12 of important instructions in the notification, it was clearly mentioned that "Before filling up of the online application, candidates are advised to thoroughly read the entire instructions and information in the CEN available on the websites of RRB's." It is further submitted that in para 1.8 of general instructions in the Notification, it is mentioned that "Signatures of the candidates on all documents should be identical, either in English or Hindi, and must be in running hand writing and not in block/capital or disjointed letters. Signatures in different style or language at the time of CBT, PET and DV etc. may result in cancellation of candidatures." Also in para 16.4 of the notification, it was specifically mentioned, which are as under: -
6OA No. 359/2020
"16.4 xxx Candidates should leave the spaces provided in the downloaded e-call letter for writing self declaration paragraph, signature and Left Thumb Impression (LTI) unfilled while coming for the exam.
Candidates will have to write the paragraph of self Declaration, sign an affix LTI at the venue of the CBT in the presence of the Invigilator at the Examination Hall ONLY and hand over the same to the Invigilator before the conclusion of the examination. Candidates writing the self declaration para and Signing in CAPITAL letters will be rejected."
Moreover, the candidates, who cleared CBT and PET were called for the fourth stage of selection process, which was documents verification. However, it was found that the applicant did not adhere by the requisite instructions regarding the signature in the E- call letter during CBT as he did not sign in his running handwriting but in Capital/Block letters in English language whereas specific instructions were given in the employment notification in this regard. Therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected and he was not called for the fourth stage of selection process for documents verification. Thus, as there is no illegality in the action of the respondents, rejection of candidature of the applicant is just and legal and the O.A. filed by applicant deserves to be dismissed. In their support, respondents have relied upon following judgments, which are as under:
7OA No. 359/2020
"1. Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85.
2. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh order/judgment dated 21.02.2017 in the case of Pardeep Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 16983 of 2016 (O&M).
3. CAT Principal Bench order dated 08.01.2020 in the case of Niraj Siwach vs. UOI & Anr. (OA No. 1283/2016)."
3(b). The respondent no. 2 has also filed separate reply raising preliminary objection and stated that the applicant has challenged order dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure A/1) by impleading Chairman, RRB, as party respondent. In fact Ministry of Railway had decided that the conduct of PET, documents verification, medical examination and publishing of panel for Level-1 post shall be carried out by the RRCs of respective Zonal Railways. It was informed to the candidates while declaring the result of short listed candidates or PET. Thus, all future communication on these were issued by RRC. Applicant has already impleaded RRC as party respondents. As per Order 1 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, a person may be joined as respondent where any right of relief is alleged to exist against such person and any common question of law or fact exists. Respondent No. 2 8 OA No. 359/2020 (Chairman, RRB) cannot consider and pass any order to redress the grievance of the applicant. Thus, OA so far as it relates to respondent no. 2 is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary objection itself.
4. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the submissions of the respondents.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely as well as the judgments cited by the parties.
6. The applicant and respondents have reiterated their stand as taken earlier.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that applicant, being an OBC category candidate and fulfilling the criteria as required, had applied online application form for the post in Level-1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix in the NWR in pursuance to Centralised Employment Notice No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018. He was given an E-call letter for appearing in Computer Based Test (CBT) on 22.10.2018 in which 9 OA No. 359/2020 he appeared and secured 74.14332 marks. After being successful in CBT, he was called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 27.03.2019 and applicant appeared for the same and was declared as qualified in the same. However, applicant was not called for the fourth stage of selection process i.e. documents verification. Thereafter, he submitted a representation on 20.07.2020 by post stating that he may be called for documents verification and medical test as he secured higher marks than the candidates called for documents verification in fourth round of selection process, but he was not replied. He then submitted an application under RTI seeking information that why he has not been called for documents verification in spite of securing higher marks and the same was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 27.07.2020, (Annexure A/1), stating that his candidature has been rejected pursuant to instructions contained in para 16.04 of the notification as he signed in capital letters of English in RRC foil of CBT call letter and, thus, he has not been called for documents verification.
8. It was noted by the respondents that in spite of clear instructions to put signature on all documents in running handwriting and not in block/capital or 10 OA No. 359/2020 disjointed letters, applicant has signed in capital letters of English in RRC foil of CBT call letter, whereas in the notification it was clearly mentioned that the same may result in cancellation of his candidature. As per para 1.8 of general instructions in the Notification, it is clear that "Signatures of the candidates on all documents should be identical, either in English or Hindi, and must be in running hand writing and not in block/capital or disjointed letters. Signatures in different style or language at the time of CBT, PET and DV etc. may result in cancellation of candidatures." Further, the provisions of notification at para 16.4, reads as under:-
"16.4 xxx Candidates should leave the spaces provided in the downloaded e-call letter for writing self declaration paragraph, signature and Left Thumb Impression (LTI) unfilled while coming for the exam.
Candidates will have to write the paragraph of self Declaration, sign an affix LTI at the venue of the CBT in the presence of the Invigilator at the Examination Hall ONLY and hand over the same to the Invigilator before the conclusion of the examination. Candidates writing the self declaration para and Signing in CAPITAL letters will be rejected."
9. As noted in 16.4 of the CEN, it was clearly mentioned that the declaration must be written in running handwriting in the e-call letter of CBT, else the same may result in cancellation of his candidature. 11 OA No. 359/2020 It is seen that applicant overlooked the instructions issued in the Notification as well as e-call letter and put his signature in Capital/Block letters of English in the RRC Foil of CBT Call letter, therefore his candidature was cancelled and he was not further called for documents verification though he cleared PET also as per specific instructions as mentioned in CEN No. 02/2018, which is just and proper. It was clear as per Important Instruction No. 12 of CEN No. 02/2018 that "Before filling up of the online application, candidates are advised to thoroughly read the entire instructions and information in the CEN available on the websites of the RRBs." Thus, applicant is himself responsible for his own mistake and, therefore, his candidature was rejected. Hence, the action of the respondents is just and proper.
10. However, it was stated by the applicant that the respondents cannot compel any person to sign in any particular manner. In fact, there is no variation in the signature of the applicant since submission of the online application form to last leg of the selection process. The application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that he signed in capital letters of English in the RRC foil of CBT call letter. The 12 OA No. 359/2020 Computer Based Test was held by respondents on 22.10.2018 and after that result was declared in which he was found successful and was thereafter shortlisted for PET. After qualifying PET and being declared qualified in the same, the respondents never informed the applicant regarding rejection of his candidature, but the said information was only known under the RTI Act, wherein he was informed that his candidature has been rejected on the ground of signing in capital letters of English in RRC foil of CBT call letter. It is clear that the respondents themselves permitted the applicant to participate further in subsequent stages after declaration of CBT result.
11. In para 16.4 of the Notification, the respondents used the word "will" meaning thereby that it was not mandatory for the candidate to sign in small letters only. It is further seen that the respondents used the word "shall" in other paragraphs of the Notification when the condition was mandatory for the candidates, hence, it is clear that the respondents have illegally cancelled the candidature of the applicant. Though applicant secured higher marks in comparison to the cut off marks in OBC category, the respondents did not permit the applicant to participate further in 13 OA No. 359/2020 selection process and the respondents have not called the applicant for fourth stage of selection process i.e. documents verification till date.
12. We are in agreement with the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & anr. vs. Neeraj Kumar & anr., dated 24.02.2012 as well as in Arif vs. Union of India and anr., as relied upon by the applicant, and find that all these decisions are directly on the issue of rejection of candidatures on account of signing in capital letters. Thus, we find that the present case in hand is squarely covered from the decisions cited above by the applicant as well as that of CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Sh. Vinod Narmal (supra) and also by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Sharma (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the CAT, Principal Bench of this Tribunal have found the rejection of candidature in exactly similar circumstances to be wrong. Also, this Bench of the Tribunal allowed the OA in the case of Manish Sharma (supra) directing the respondent-department to take further necessary action on the application of the applicant for selection to Group 'D' posts following CEN 2/2018, without 14 OA No. 359/2020 rejecting it on the ground of signature not being in a running handwringing. We have also found that Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while discussing the whole issue in the case of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (supra), has distinguished this matter from the issue decided in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. (supra) cited by the respondents. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that a similar condition insisted upon by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board was mere directory and not mandatory. The said view is also taken by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Sharma (supra) on exactly identical issue.
13. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the respondents, we are of the view that the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As far as the judgment in the case of Pardeep Kumar (supra) is concerned, the facts were completely different as the said selection was in respect of constables in paramilitary forces wherein the candidates were required to sign in running handwriting and were required to obey lawful commands and signing in capital letters was 15 OA No. 359/2020 considered to be an act of disobedience and, thus, any departure can well be met with cancellation. But the facts in the present case has nothing to do with selection in paramilitary forces as the same is with respect to Railways. In the case of Niraj Siwach (supra), there was a case of Forensic Document Expert nominated by the Railways to match the handwriting/signature on the relevant papers and the Document Expert found that the hand-
writing/signature of the applicant do not match and, accordingly, his case was rejected by the competent authority. Such is not the situation in present case as no Expert Body has been appointed and there was no conscious decision taken by the competent authority to reject the candidature of the applicant.
14. Thus, in view of the observations and discussions made herein-above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure A/1) deserves to be quashed and set aside.
15. Accordingly, impugned order dated 27.07.2020 (Annexure A/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take further necessary action in the matter and call the applicant for the 16 OA No. 359/2020 fourth stage of selection process i.e. documents verification, etc., if otherwise he is found eligible and then the applicant be allowed to complete further selection process for the post in Level-1 of 7th CPC Pay Matrix in North Western Railway in pursuance to CEN No. 02/2018 dated 10.02.2018 and not to reject the candidature of the applicant merely on the ground of signature not being in running handwriting. It is also made clear that the applicant may be considered for the said post, if there is a vacancy in the said selection and that no third party rights are effected. Accordingly, present Original Application is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/