Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Pankaj Kumar Mandal vs M/O Railways on 31 December, 2024
1
OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.021/00405/2016 & 021/00406/2016
ORDER RESERVED ON 11.12.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 31.12.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
(OA.No.021/00405/2016)
Sri Pankaj Kumar Mandal, aged 23 Yrs.
Occ: Unemployed, S/o Shri Rabindra Prasad Mandal
AL-PO-Fathapur, PS-Nathnagar
Dist-Bhagaplur, Viya-Champanagar
Bihar - 812004. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri G.Pavana Murthy)
Vs.
UOI rep. by its
1. The General Manager
South Central Railway
3rd Floor, Rail Nilayam
Secunderabad.
2. The Chairman
Railway Recruitment Cell
1st Floor, 'C' Block
Rail Nilayam, South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500071.
3. The Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment
Railway Recruitment Cell, 1st Floor
'C' Block, Rail Nilayam
South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500071. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri K.Ravi Krishnakanth, Addl.CGSC)
(OA.No.021/00406/2016)
Sri Rohit Kumar, aged 20 Yrs.
Occ: Unemployed, S/o Shri Madan Mandal
AL-Ramchandrapur Navtolia, PO-Fathapur
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8
c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768
LLI SANDHYA
772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016
PS-Nathnagar, Dist-Bhagaplur
Viya-Champanagar, Bihar - 812004. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri G.Pavana Murthy)
Vs.
UOI rep. by its
1. The General Manager
South Central Railway
3rd Floor, Rail Nilayam
Secunderabad.
2. The Chairman
Railway Recruitment Cell
1st Floor, 'C' Block
Rail Nilayam, South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500071.
3. The Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment
Railway Recruitment Cell, 1st Floor
'C' Block, Rail Nilayam
South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500071. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri K.Ravi Krishnakanth, Addl.CGSC)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8
c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768
LLI SANDHYA
772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3
OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The issues raised and the relief claimed in the two OAs are exactly similar in nature and, hence, they have been taken up together for consideration and passing a common order.
2. The relief sought by the applicant, Shri Pankaj Kumar Mandal, in OA.No.405 of 2016, is as follows:
"....to quash and set-aside the impugned R2 letter No.SCR/P- HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2013 dated 04.09.2015 and Lt.No.SCR/P- HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2003 dated 10.11.2015, as it is illegal, arbitrary and against Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to consider the applicant candidature as per his overall merit rank for the posts of Trackman/Helper-II/Assistant points Man vide employment notification No.RRC/SCR/Group- D/1/2013 and pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of principles of natural justice."
3. The relief sought by the applicant, Shri Rohit Kumar, in OA.No.406 of 2016, is as follows:
"....to quash and set-aside the impugned R2 letter No.SCR/P- HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2013 dated 20.08.2015 and Lt.No.SCR/P- HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2003 dated 10.11.2015, as it is illegal, arbitrary and against Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and direct the respondents to consider the applicant candidature as per his overall merit rank for the posts of Trackman/Helper-II/Assistant points Man vide employment notification No.RRC/SCR/Group- D/1/2013 and pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of principles of natural justice."
4. The brief facts of the case, in OA.405/2016, are as follows:
i. It is submitted that the applicant had applied for the posts of Group 'D' (Erstwhile) Trackman Helper-II Assistant Pointsman in the South Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 Central Railway, Secunderabad, advertised vide Employment Notice No.RRC/SCR/Group-D/1/2013, dt.30.08.2013, in the Pay Band-1 of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800/-, under Open Market Recruitment. The applicant, having the necessary qualification, i.e., 10th class pass, applied for the posts reserved under OBC vacancies. He submitted the duly filled-in application form, dated 26.09.2013, in accordance with the procedure, as laid down in the said notification. ii. Respondent No.3, i.e., the Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment/RRC issued a hall ticket to the applicant, with Roll No.91420887, for the posts in Group 'D', for the written examination held on 30.11.2014.
iii. After successfully clearing the written examination, he was asked to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) on 27.06.2015, at the RRC Ground, beside Railnilayam, Secunderabad, and a separate Hall Ticket was issued to the applicant with the Roll No.91420887. The applicant successfully passed the PET and was called for verification of Documents on 01.09.2015, at Tirupati, through a separate hall ticket.
iv. The applicant appeared on 01.09.2015, along with all his documents for verification. Respondent No.2, i.e., the Chairman/RRC, Secunderabad, in his letter No.SCR/P-HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2013, dated 04.09.2015, informed the applicant that a doubt had arisen about the genuineness of the candidate who had attended the written examination on 30.11.2014 and that the fingerprints obtained on the application form as well as those taken on the date of document Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 verification, did not match those taken in the written examination, as per the expert opinion. Thus, it was alleged that the applicant tried to get the job by fraud and that it was a case of impersonation. Before they could take a final decision, an opportunity was provided to the applicant to explain his stand on the proposed debarment of the applicant from appearing in the RRB/RRC examinations. v. In response to the Show Cause Notice, dated 29.09.2015, from R2, proposing to debar the applicant from appearing at all the examinations conducted by any RRB/RRC all over India Railways, the applicant denied the alleged charge of impersonation, vide his representation, dated 29.09.2015, addressed to the 2nd Respondent and requested to consider him for appointment, as per his merit position, for the posts of Trackman/Helper-II/Assistant Pointsman. vi. In response to the applicant's explanation, in his representation, dated 29.09.2015, as per the applicant, Respondent No.2, vide his letter No.SCR/P-HQ/111/RRC/Group D/2013, dated 10.11.2015, without appreciating the explanation submitted by him, took the final decision, by rejecting the applicant's candidature under the said Notification No.RRC/SCR/Group-D/1/2013, dated 30.08.2013.
vii. Aggrieved by the alleged illegal action of R2, in rejecting the applicant's candidature for the said notification, the present OA is filed.
5. The grounds invoked by the applicant, are as follows:-
i. The applicant's application form, dated 26.09.2013, was scrutinized by the staff of the RRC thoroughly and only after that Hall Ticket Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 No.91420887 was issued. At the examination centre, on 30.11.2014, after careful examination and comparison of the applicant and his photo identity and the photo affixed on the hall ticket, and, on being satisfied that the applicant was the candidate, he was allowed to sit for the written examination, duly taking his signature and thumb impression during the written examination. ii. As per R2 letter, dated 04.09.2015, the alleged charge against the applicant is with regard to the Fingerprints taken on the application as well as those taken on the date of document verification, but, later on, in the R2 letter, dated 10.11.2015, the contentions differed and it was alleged that the handwriting and signatures are not of one and the same person. Hence, R2 rejected the applicant's candidature without application of mind.
iii. As per R2 letter, dated 04.09.2015, R2 proposed to debar the applicant for life from appearing in all the examinations conducted by any RRB/RRC, all over Indian Railways. After explanation was submitted by the applicant, R2 changed his opinion and rejected the applicant's candidature for the said notification only. Hence, the action of R2, in rejecting the applicant's candidature, is based on surmises and is without any evidence.
iv. As per the expert opinion, the fingerprints of the person who took the written examination on 30.11.2014 and the fingerprints available in the application form did not tally. It is for the staff of the RRC to establish with documentary proof and beyond reasonable doubt that the fingerprints in the application form and the fingerprints taken later Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 are not of one and the same person. Things cannot be presumed on hypothetical basis.
v. He has further contended that it is not revealed as to who are the Experts and their locus to certify such documents. The respondents should have given a reasonable opportunity to the applicant by asking to appear before the Experts to establish his stand and clear their doubts. But the respondent arbitrarily took the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature.
vi. It is argued that the applicant has successfully completed all the stages right from the written examination and PET to verification of documents and medical examination. The applicant was thoroughly screened and scrutinized at all the stages and, the applicant neither furnished any false particulars nor suppressed any material information while filling up the application form or committed any misconduct during the selection process or indulged in any criminal activity. Nor was he found guilty of submitting fabricated/forged/tampered certificates or using any unfair means during the written examination or misbehaving at the venue of the written exam or PET centre.
vii. It is submitted that the applicant's case is covered by the Law of Estoppel and non-compliance/observance of the principles of natural justice has put him to prejudice, for which the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside.
6. The applicant in OA.No.406/2016, was issued call letter No.41411093 by R3 for appearing at the written examination, held on 09.11.2014, which he cleared Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 successfully. PET and document verification were held at Vijayawada on 25.06.2015 and 17.08.2015, respectively. Through letter, dt. 20.08.2015, he was informed about the doubt of R2 regarding the alleged impersonation in the written examination held on 09.11.2014. In response to the show cause notice, dt.20.08.2015, he submitted his representation, dt.26.09.2015, denying the allegations. Respondent No.2, vide his letter, dt.10.11.2015, took a decision to reject the applicant's candidature under the said notification, dt. 30.08.2013.
7. The rest of the facts and the grounds advanced by the applicant are exactly the same as in OA.No.405/2016.
8. On notice, the Respondents have filed their reply statement, wherein they averred as follows:
i. According to the respondents, Employment Notice NO.RRC/SCR/Group-D/1/2013, dated 30.08.2013, was issued by the South Central Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Secunderabad, inviting applications from citizens of India, and such other candidates declared eligible by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, to fill up 2801 (2712 Non-PH & 84-PH) erstwhile Group-D posts, through Open Market Recruitment, in Pay Band-1 of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- in Secunderabad and other places prescribing the eligibility criteria as mentioned therein.
ii. Some of the conditions, laid down in the notification, are as under-
a. Para 5.4 of the notification states that all the candidates (including Physically Handicapped candidates) should fill up Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 the application form in his/her own handwriting, either in Hindi or in English, with blue or black ball point pen only. b. Para 5.13 of the notification states that the candidates should copy the declaration at Column No.18 of the application form in his/her own handwriting (not in capital letters), otherwise their applications will be rejected.
c. Para 5.14 of the notification states that the candidates should put their left hand thumb impression at the designated box in the application form. The thumb impression must be clear and complete. Applications without/smudged left hand thumb impressions will be summarily rejected.
d. Para 11.5 of the notification states that -
"Action as deemed fit necessary including criminal action will be taken by the RRC against candidates found guilty of submitting fabricated/forged/tampered certificates, using unfair means during written examination or PET, misbehaviour at venues where written examination centre or PET centre, etc."
iii. According to the respondents, the above instructions were indicated in the notification for selecting the correct candidates and to spot the candidates who resorted to unfair means in the written examination or PET.
iv. In response to the notification, total 13,86,753 applications were received. After thorough scrutiny, rejection letters were sent to 4,70,030 candidates, by post, citing the reasons for rejection of their application and call letters to all the 9,16,723 eligible candidates were sent.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 v. As per the schedule of written examination issued by the Railway Board, written examination was conducted for the eligible candidates on 02.11.2015, 09.11.2015, 16.11.2015, 23.11.2015 and 30.11.2015. Out of 9,16,723 candidates called for the written exam, only 3,90,875 candidates attended. The applicants in OAs.405/2016 & 406/2016 were amongst the eligible candidates with Application Nos.10252175 and 10289863, and were called for written examinations held on 30.11.2014 and 09.11.2014 with Roll Nos.91420887 and 41411093, respectively. The applicants' handwriting samples and left hand thumb impressions were collected from OMR answer sheets during the written examination.
vi. The written examination results were declared on 17.05.2015 by calling 5434 (Non-PH) qualified candidates (in ratio 1:2) to the next recruitment stage, i.e., Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The applicants appeared at the PET, conducted on 27.06.2015 and 25.06.2015, respectively, at Moula-Ali & RRC Grounds, Secunderabad, where they were found 'Qualified'. The applicants' left hand thumb impressions were collected on the call letters at the time of PET. vii. The applicants were found eligible for being called for verification of their documents and medical examination on 02.09.2016 at Tirupati and on 17.08.2016 at Vijayawada, respectively. On the day of document verification, the applicants' handwriting samples and left hand thumb impressions were once again collected, as per the procedure followed in the case of every candidate. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 viii. After document verification, the samples of the left hand thumb impressions, available on the application, OMR answer sheets, PET call letters and option-cum-information sheet on the day of verification were put before the finger print expert for his expert opinion.
ix. According to the Respondents, the persons who had filled the applications had not written the examination and some other persons had written the examination in their place by indulging in impersonation.
x. Based on the adverse reports of the Finger Print Expert's opinion, the applicants were issued show-cause notices, vide letters, dated 04.09.2015 and 20.08.2015, respectively, giving them an opportunity to represent against the proposal to debar them, as per the Railway Board's instructions.
xi. Applicant in OA.405/2016 submitted his representation, dated 29.09.2015, wherein he denied the allegation of impersonation giving reasons for such denial. Based on his representation, all the handwriting samples collected from the applicant were put before the Forensic Document Examiner (GEQD) for his expert opinion on the Handwritings of the applicant. Similar action was taken on the representation, dt.26.09.2015, of the applicant in OA.406/2016, who had also denied similar allegations.
xii. After careful and thorough examination of the documents in question, using various scientific methods, differences were found in the writings and signatures of both the candidates. Therefore, the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 Chairman, RRC/Secunderabad(R2), sent letters, dt. 10.11.2015, rejecting the candidature of the applicants for the above notification.
xiii. Rejecting the contentions made by the applicants, it is submitted by the Respondents that Para 315.12 of the Manual for Railway Recruitment Board states the following:
"At the time of verification of documents of a successful candidate, he/she should be asked to sign and his/her signature should be compared with the signature on the answer script, and signature affixed in the application. In case there is any doubt that the signature of the candidate on the answer script is different from his/her signature affixed on the application or the signature endorsed at the time of verification, such a candidate should not be empanelled. Papers should be sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, in such cases of doubt; and if it is established that the signature is not genuine, the candidate should be debarred from all RRB examinations (apart from his/her candidature being rejected for that particular recruitment). (Railway Board's letter No.E(RRB)/2000/7/1 dated 9.3.2000) - RRCB No.3/2000."
xiv. It is contended that the administration/Respondent No.2 has taken due care in giving reasonable opportunity to the candidates and followed all the instructions issued by the Railway Board in deciding upon the rejection of the candidature of the applicants for the posts and also rejecting the candidature of the candidates for their lifetime in the case of all RRB/RRC examinations.
xv. For the above reasons, Respondents have requested to dismiss both the OAs.
9. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us.
10. Two issues, that we are concerned with, are - Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 i. Grounds for rejection of the candidature of the applicants and further action debarring the applicants for their life time from examinations to be conducted by the RRB/RRC. ii. Whether opportunity has been given to them to be heard on the above grounds.
11. Annexures-R1 and R2 annexed with the reply form the basis for rejection of the applicants' candidature. In the case of the applicant in OA.405/2016, Shri Pankaj Kumar Mandal, the Finger Print Examiner's Report (Ann-R1) records the finding that -
"The finger impression (LT) is not tallying with the applicant's LT impression on OMR answer sheet. Patterns are defer (sic)."
12. In the case of the applicant in OA.406/2016, Shri Rohit Kumar, the Finger Print Examiner has reported that -
"The LTI on OMR answer sheet is not tallying with the specimen LT and RTIs of the applicant. Patterns are different."
13. Opinion of the Forensic Document Examiner (Retd. Dy.GEQD) has been enclosed as Annexure R2, wherein it is mentioned, in case of both the applicants, as follows:
"Sub:- Forensic examination of writing/signatures on documents pertaining to suspected impersonation of the following candidates.
Ref: Chairman/RRC/S.C.Railway's Lr.No.SCR/P-HQ/111/RRC Dt.21.08.15.
Writings/signatures appearing on the documents have been marked as follows:
i) Writings/signatures on the original OMR answer sheets have been marked Q1 and Q2.
ii) Signatures on the call letters for the written examination have been marked Q3
iii) Call letters for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) have been marked Q4
iv) Writing/signatures on the applications have been marked Q5 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016
v) Call letters for verification of original documents have been marked A1
vi) Specimen writings/signatures on the Information Handout taken at the time of verification have been marked S1, S2 etc. The writings and signatures of all candidates marked Q1, Q2 and Q3 have been compared with the relevant writings/signatures marked S1, S2, A1, Q4 and Q5 to establish whether all these writings and signatures have been written by the same person or not.
After careful and thorough examination of the original documents in all aspects of forensic document science using various scientific equipments such as hand magnifier, various light arrangements, measuring scales, etc., I came to the conclusion as described in each of the following cases -
x x x x x x x
2. Documents pertaining to Roll No.91420887 (Pankaj Kumar Mandal)
(i) Interse comparison of the writings and signatures marked Q4, Q5, S1 to S3 and A1 show similarities indicating their common authorship.
(ii) Interse comparison of the writings and signatures marked Q4, Q5, S1 to S3, A1 and Q1, Q2, Q3 show differences indicating their different authorship.
3. Documents pertaining to Roll No.41411093 (Rohit Kumar)
(i) Interse comparison of the writings and signatures marked Q4, Q5, S1 to S3 and A1 show similarities indicating their common authorship.
(ii) Interse comparison of the writings and signatures marked Q4, Q5, S1 to S3, A1 and Q1, Q2 and Q3 show differences indicating their different authorship."
14. It is worth noting that Q1, Q2, Q3 are the writings/signatures marked on the original OMR answer sheets and on the call letters for the written examination. Rest of the writings, on the call letters for PET, applications, call letters for document verification, etc., are the ones other than Q1, Q2, Q3. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016
15. Another point to be noted is that the expert opinion, on Forensic Examination of writings/signatures above, is in respect of 4 (four) candidates, including the two applicants before us.
16. The scrutiny of the documents in question and the fingerprints thereon led to the doubt about the genuineness of the candidates. Thereafter, further examination of the signatures and writings was conducted which confirmed the doubt. The notification had warned the candidates against adoption of unfair means and misconduct, as mentioned in the reply statement of the respondents. These are specific provisions in the Manual for Railway Recruitment Boards, as cited above, for comparison of signatures of the candidates on the answer sheet and those on the application form, etc. It also lays down the stringent action to be taken, in case fraud through impersonation/forgery, etc., is proved.
17. Letter, dt.29.11.2024, of the Chairman, RRC, presented by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, clearly enumerates the measures laid down by the Railway Board for preserving the sanctity of the process of selection by eliminating impersonators. The letter concludes as follows -
"As both the Finger Print Examiner and also Government Examiner of Questioned Documents have confirmed that the LTI and the signatures on the OMR answer sheet is differ(sic) from other specimen Finger Prints and Hand writings available, as there is an evidence of impersonation in this particular case, the petitioner is not entitled for any empanelment."
18. We are inclined to follow the Apex Court's observations in [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1073, Sachin Kumar & Ors. vs. DSSSB & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 639- 640 of 2021, March 03, 2021, vide paras 33 &47, which read as follows: Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 "33. .......A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process.
x x x x x x x x
47. The decisions in Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Gohil and Kalamani (supra) all go to emphasise that a recruiting authority is entitled to take a bona fide view, based on the material before it, that the entire process stands vitiated as a result of which a fresh selection process should be initiated. The integrity of the selection process cannot be lightly disregarded by the High Court substituting its own subjective opinion on the sufficiency of the material which has been taken into account by the decision making authority. Undoubtedly, fairness to candidates who participate in the process is an important consideration. There may be situations where candidates who have indulged in irregularities can be identified and it is then possible for the authority to segregate the tainted from the untainted candidates. On the other hand, there may be situations where the nature of the irregularities may be manifold and the number of candidates involved is of such a magnitude that it is impossible to precisely delineate or segregate the tainted from the untainted. A considered decision of the authority based on the material before it taken bona fide should not lightly be interfered in the exercise of the powers of judicial review unless it stands vitiated on grounds of unreasonableness or proportionality."
19. After considering the submissions made by the applicants and the arguments of the Respondents, we feel that the recruiting authority has followed sound and scientific principles to segregate the tainted from non-tainted candidates.
20. The other issue is whether, before rejecting their candidature and debarring the candidates, the applicants were given any opportunity to be heard on the allegations and the proposed action against them. They have admitted having Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.405/2016 & 406/2016 received the notices regarding "impersonation of candidature" vide Anns-A7 & A8, respectively, to which they have replied vide their representations, dt.29.09.2015 and 26.09.2015, respectively. We have also gone into the provisions under which the experts were appointed for securing their opinion on fingerprints as well as handwritings/signatures.
21. Thus, no merit is found in the arguments of the applicants. OA. Nos.405/2016 and 406/2016 are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne) Administrative Member Judicial Member 31.12.2024 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN PANDIRLAPAHYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8 c2cfaa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768 LLI SANDHYA 772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.06 18:12:02+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0