Bombay High Court
Rahul Kumar Porwal vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 22 October, 2018
Bench: A. S. Oka, M. S. Sonak
Shridhar Sutar 1 wp-1624.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1624 OF 2018
Rahul Kumar Porwal ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... Respondents
.....
Mr. F. A. Khan for the Petitioner.
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni for the Respondents.
.....
CORAM : A. S. OKA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2018. P. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2017 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing Original Application No. 667 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner complaining against his non selection to "D" Group post with the Central Railways.
3. The Central Railways, vide employment notice No.3/2013 dated 8th August, 2013 invited pplications in the prescribed format 1 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 2 wp-1624.18.doc for filling in 5740 "D" Group posts. In response, almost 9,77,613 applications were received within the due date. It appears that on preliminary scrutiny of the application form the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process which includes inter-alia written test, physical efficiency test and medical examination. However, ultimately, the petitioner was not selected. In response to his query under the Right to Information Act (RTI), the petitioner was informed that his non selection was on account of his application form being found to be incomplete in certain relevant particulars. The petitioner instituted Original Application No. 667 of 2017 before the CAT, which has, by the impugned order dated 8th November, 2017 dismissed the same. Hence, the present petition.
4. Mr. F. A. Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the non mention of IPO/DD number, date and the amount actually paid, in the prescribed application form, was a trivial error. He points out that the applicant along with application form had in fact enclosed a copy of the actual IPO and therefore, such particulars were duly ascertainable by the Central Railways. He points out that it is not even the case of Central 2 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 3 wp-1624.18.doc Railways that the amount as prescribed was not paid by the petitioner. The IPO was in fact encashed by the Central Railways.
5. Mr. Khan also points out that the non annexation of EBC certificate or the declaration that the petitioner belongs to minority community was also not a good ground to refuse selection to the petitioner. Mr. Khan points out that the petitioner was not claiming any waiver in fees and therefore there was no necessity to annex such certificate. He points out that the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated on account of arbitrary rejection of his candidature or his non selection to "D" Group post with Central Railways. He relies on Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India and others - 2017(2) SLR 403 (Delhi) in support of his contentions.
6. Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that participation in selection process confers no right to selection. He points out that the Central Railways were dealing with almost 9.77 lakh applications. Out of which, almost 3.18 lakh applications came to be rejected for incompleteness or failure to 3 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 4 wp-1624.18.doc state material particulars. He points out that the employment notice had made it very clear that invalid or incomplete applications are liable to the rejection. He submits that since the Central Railway has to deal with literally a million applications, it is too much to expect that the authorities to look to some other place or to some other documents for ascertaining particulars about individual applicants. He points out that there are no malafides alleged and admittedly, the petitioner's application form was incomplete/invalid. He submits that in similar circumstances almost 3.18 lakh applications came to be rejected. For all these reasons he submits that the present petition may be dismissed.
7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
8. The Employment Notice No.3/2013, not only provides for the application format in which applicants desirous of seeking employment are required to apply but further, gives detailed instructions for filling of such application format and enclose, annexures therewith. Clause 7 of the employment notice, in terms provides for enclosure of income certificate for economically backward class candidates availing fee concession (Annexure-C) 4 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 5 wp-1624.18.doc and self declaration for candidates belonging to minority communities availing fee concession (Annexure-E). The application format, in Clause 15 requires an applicant to state details of IPO/DD number, date, name of post office/bank & place. Clause 8 of the employment notice clearly provides that candidates should read all instructions thoroughly before sending their applications, otherwise their applications are liable to be rejected on one or more of the 18 reasons set out in clauses 8.1 to 8.18. Some of the reasons specified, include applications not being in the prescribed format or incomplete/illigible or the copies of required enclosures mentioned in paragraph 7 not being enclosed.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has produced on record the application in the prescribed format by which he applied for consideration to the "D" Group post. The perusal of the application very clearly bears out with the same is incomplete. The details of IPO/DD number and date have been left blank. The candidates belonging to economically backward classes or to the minorities are entitled for waiver in the matter of payment of application fees. However, certificates in this regard have to be produced by such candidates as prescribed in Annexures-C & E. 5 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 6 wp-1624.18.doc Since the application, in the context of payment of application fees was found to be blank and further, since, the application was accompanied by the certificates as prescribed in Annexures C & E, the central railway authorities rejected the candidature of the petitioner. There are no malafides alleged against the respondents.
10. Although, it is possible that the respondents could have taken cognizance of the copy of the IPO enclosed by the petitioner along with his application, the fact that they have not done so, does not mean that the respondents have acted unreasonably or arbitrarily or in any anything manner violated the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This is because, respondents in the present case, received 9,77,613 applications for filling up 5740 posts. During the first scrutiny itself, respondents rejected 3,18,944 applications on the grounds that they were incomplete or defective or that there was variance with information in the application as compared to the documents annexed or that the applications were incomplete or made without payment of requisite fees, without details about IPO etc. Since, the 6 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 7 wp-1624.18.doc respondents were required to deal with such volumes of applications, it cannot be said that rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the basis of his application form, which was admittedly incomplete constitutes any unreasonableness or arbitrariness. This is certainly not a case where the petitioner can complain of being singled out for any hostile discrimination. The matter has to necessarily be examined of the perspective that the Central Railways had to deal with almost 9.77 lakh applications.
11. The fact that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process upto a particular stage does not give the petitioner any indefeasible right to claim appointment. The employment notice was very clear and had put the applicants to notice that incomplete application forms are liable to rejection. Detailed instructions were also given in the employment notice in the matter of filling up of application forms. In the absence of any allegation of malafides, we see no error in the action of the respondents or for that matter the view taken by the CAT in declining relief to the petitioner.
7 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 8 wp-1624.18.doc
12. In Ajay Kumar (supra), the petitioner filled up the OMR sheet but forgot to darken one of the block to record the date of birth. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court however noted that this did not cause any administrative inconvenience to tag the answer sheet and connect the same to the petitioner. This was apparent from the fact that the optical reader read the answer sheet and assigned the marks to the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, that the Court applied the maxim "minimis non curat lex" granted relief to the petitioner.
13. From the aforesaid judgment, it is not possible to ascertain the details of the number of applicants or the number of rejected applications on such grounds. In any case, the Court noted that the inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner in the said case did not cause any administrative convenience and the optical reader, in fact, read the answer sheet and assign marks to the petitioner.
14. The facts in the present case are entirely different. The plea of administrative inconvenience has been specifically raised and taking into consideration the fact that the Central Railways had to 8 of 9 Shridhar Sutar 9 wp-1624.18.doc deal with almost 9.77 lakh applications, out of which, almost 3.18 lakh applications had to be rejected for defects of similar nature, we cannot fault the reasoning of the CAT in denying any relief to the petitioner.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( M. S. SONAK, J. ) ( A. S. OKA, J. )
Digitally signed by
Shridhar Shridhar
Marutirao Marutirao Sutar
Date: 2018.10.25
Sutar 14:48:30 +0530
9 of 9