Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Lakhan Lal Narwariya vs M/O Railways on 5 April, 2024
1 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00682/2017
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 05th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Lakhan Lal Narwariya
S/o Shri Radhelal
Aged about 42 years
R/o NFB (office)
Plot No.3 (IInd Floor)
Vidhya Vihar School professor Colony
Bhopal (MP) 462002
Mobile No.NIL -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri Prahlad Choudhary)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Railway
Through General Manager
West Central Railway,
RB-III 422, 1& 2 Indra Market
Railway Colony Jabalpur (MP) 482001
2. Divisional Railway Manager (DRM)
West Central Railway
Near Indra Market Jabalpur (MP) 462001- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri A.P. Khare)
(Date of reserving the order : 31.01.2024)
Page 1 of 7
2 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
Through this Original Application applicant is seeking appointment on the post of Group D category (HH) physically handicapped being having permanent disability of 45% in hearing.
2. Precisely the case of the applicant is that the applicant, being hearing handicapped, had applied for the post of Group D against the Employment Notice No.2/12 issued by the respondent department for filling 1212 post for normal candidates and 142 post for physically handicapped person. Applicant was called for written examination held on 08.12.2013 wherein he was declared selected vide result dated 26.03.2014. He was called for document verification followed by medical examination vide letter dated 07.04.2014 (Annexure A/5) and he appeared for the same. He was found with 100% disability but not declared unfit for any such post of Group D. On non-receipt of any information applicant submitted representation dated 16.07.2015 to the respondents. Respondents vide letter dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure A/6) Page 2 of 7 3 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017 informed the applicant that 54 visually handicapped candidate were called for document verification and medical examination against 45 advertised vacancies. In medical examination applicant was found 100% visual handicapped. As per Railway Board instructions 100% visually handicapped candidate is eligible for appointment on the post of Safaiwala in Commercial department and hospital attendant in medical department. Visually handicapped candidate who got 63.83% (merit list No.1695) in the written examination was appointed as Safaiwala in Commercial department and 57.84% (merit list No.4127) was appointed as Medical attendant in the Medical department. Since the applicant secured only 55.37 (merit list No.5618) which is less than the marks obtained by above two candidates, he was not selected. Hence this Original Application.
3. Respondents in their counter reply have submitted that in pursuance to employment Notification No.2/2012 written examination was conducted by the Railway Recruitment Cell West Central Railway. The successful candidates were called for documents verification for medical examination on the basis of merit list in excess of 20% of the vacancy. According to the Page 3 of 7 4 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017 notification, 54 visually handicapped candidates were called for document verification and medical examination against the 45 advertised vacancies. Applicant was found 100% visually handicapped. As per Railway Board's instruction 100% visually handicap (blind) candidate was eligible for appointment on the post of Safaiwala in Commercial Department and Hospital Attendant in Medical Department. Against 142 vacant posts of PH category, one vacancy of Safaiwala was available in Commercial department and one vacancy of Hospital Attendant was available in Medical department for visually handicapped candidates. Visually handicapped candidate who got 63.83% in the written examination was at merit No.1695 in the merit list and was appointed as Safaiwala in Commercial Department and another candidate possessing 57.84% was at Sr. No.4127 of merit list, was appointed on the post of Hospital Attendant in medical Department. The applicant who was also visually handicapped candidate got 55.37% marks and stood at Sr. No.5618 in merit list i.e. below the rank of empanelled candidates. Since there was only one post in commercial department and one post in medical department against 100% visually handicapped quota the candidates holding higher Page 4 of 7 5 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017 percentage/rank were appointed and the applicant was not selected. Applicant had also approached the court of Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities against his non appointment but the Commissioner vide order dated 22.08.2017 (Annexure R/4) declined to interfere.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed M.A. No.200/943/2023 for taking additional documents on record. In the said application applicant has submitted that he has obtained information under RTI vide letter dated 21.05.2019 about appointment of 100% visual handicapped candidate for the recruitment year 2014 and respondent vide letter dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure A/7) and 01.06.2019 (Annexure A/8) informed that for the recruitment year 2014 no vacancy/post was filled up by 100% visual handicapped. He has also filed office memorandum dated 04.03.2015 issued by department of empowerment of person with disabilities in compliance of order dated 24.12.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CM No.21081/14 (Annexure A/9 and A/10).
5. Respondents have filed their reply to the application for taking additional documents on record wherein it is stated that two candidates who got more marks than the applicant were Page 5 of 7 6 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017 also not empanelled in the selection (Annexure AD-1) as there was only one post in commercial department and one post in medical department against 100% visually handicapped quota.
6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
7. As per Railway Board's instructions, 100% visually handicap (blind) candidate was eligible for appointment on the post of Safaiwala in Commercial Department and Hospital Attendant in Medical Department. Against 142 vacant posts of PH category, one vacancy of Safaiwala was available in Commercial department and one vacancy of Hospital Attendant was available in Medical department for visually handicapped candidates which is evident from Annexure R/3. Visually handicapped candidate who got 63.83% in the written examination was at merit No.1695 in the merit list and was appointed as Safaiwala in Commercial Department and another candidate possessing 57.84% was at Sr. No.4127 of merit list, was appointed on the post of Hospital Attendant in medical Department. The applicant got 55.37% marks and stood at Sr. No.5618 in merit list i.e. below the rank of empanelled candidates. Since there was only one post in commercial Page 6 of 7 7 O.A.No. 200/00682/2017 department and one post in medical department against 100% visually handicapped quota the candidates holding higher percentage/rank were appointed and the applicant was not selected. On perusal of Annexure AD/1 Visually Handicapped (100%) not in panel against said notification No.02/2012 we find that candidates i.e. Rekha Jaiswal secured 61.8 marks and Mangal Singh Parihar secured 60.67 marks were also not empanelled in the merit list as there was only one vacancy in commercial department and one vacancy in medical department. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the selection process against the said notification.
8. Accordingly this Original Application is dismissed. Misc. Application (s) if any pending, shall also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
kg/-
Page 7 of 7