Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ratnakar Verma vs North Central Railway on 25 November, 2025
OA No. 330/137 of 2025
(Reserved on 07.11.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 25th day of November, 2025
Original Application No. 330/137 of 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Ratnakar Verma, a/a 31 years, S/o Sri Suresh Verma, R/o Village
Garaha, Post Ratanpura, District Mau
....Applicant
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
By Advocate: Shri Ankur Sharma, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad
2. The Chairman Railway, Recruitment Cell, Balmiki Chauraha,
Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad
3. Deputy Chief Recruitment Officer/Railway Recruitment
Cell/Public Information Officer, Nawab Yusuf Road, near Balmiki
Chauraha, Allahabad
4. Assistant Chief Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Nawab Yusuf
Road, near Balmiki Chauraha, Allahabad
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Mr. Ankur Sharma along with Ms. Nidhi Aarwal learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. Issue an order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure No. A-8), passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby the candidature of the applicant for the aforesaid post has Page 1 of 8 OA No. 330/137 of 2025 been cancelled AND also to quash the order dated 19.02.2019 passed by Respondent No. 2/ Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Nawab Yusuf Road, Near Balmiki Chauraha, Allahabad. (Annexure No. A-1) by which the claim of the applicant for appointment on the Post of Helper Electric T.R.T./T.R.M./ T.L. Vidhyut (Group-
D) as OBC candidate in pursuance of Advertisement (Employment Notice No. 01/2012) (Annexure No. A-2) dated 11/08/2012, issued by Respondent No. 2 has been cancelled.
II. Issue an order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint the applicant on the Post of Helper Electric T.R.T./T.R.M./ T.L. Vidhyut (Group-D) as OBC candidate in pursuance of Advertisement (Employment Notice No. 01/2012) PUNIT KUMAR (Annexure No. A-2) dated 11/08/2012, issued by MISHRA Respondent No. 2, and to give him the status of a selected candidate, granting him all consequential benefits. III. Issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the attending circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application are that an advertisement being Notification No.01/2012 was floated by the respondent-2 for filling up the post of Group-D. The applicant being eligible, applied for the post of Helper Electric TRT/TRM/TL Vidhut under Other Backwards Category (hereinafter referred as OBC). Thereafter, he appeared in the written test, which was to be held on 01.12.2013 and was declared successful in the said exam. Subsequently, he was called for Physical Test and he appeared in the said test, wherein he was declared successful. 3.1 Thereafter, the respondents declared the final result, but the name of the applicant was not found in the selected final list, whereas the candidates, having lesser marks than the applicant, had been appointed. Aggrieved by the same, he made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 08.10.2015 before the respondent-2, seeking certain information, but the same was rejected as the fees regarding the information sought by the applicant, was not properly paid. Thereafter, the applicant submitted another application under Page 2 of 8 OA No. 330/137 of 2025 RTI Act on 18.06.2016. In reply, it was informed to the applicant that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled as he used whitener/eraser in OMR Sheet vide letter dated 14.07.2016. 3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.1110/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2018 with a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant in light of the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA reported in (2018) 16 SCC 447 and also to pass a speaking and reasoned order, under intimation to the applicant, but the respondent Authorities rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 11.02.2019. The orders dated 11.02.2019 as well as 14.07.2016 is impugned in this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 24.08.2024, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was allowed to appear in written examination and physical efficiency test. Thereafter, he was called for document verification of the original documents and it was found that the applicant had used eraser/whitener in OMR answer sheet, which is contrary to the instructions provided in the OMR answer sheet as well as Notification No.01/2012. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled. The applicant had given declaration that all the information provided by him are true, correct and complete and if any wrong were found his candidature has been rejected without any information. .. 4.1 The instructions as mentioned in OMR Answer Sheet No.5, 10, 13 clearly demonstrate that changes in OMR answer sheet is not permitted and once the choice of answer is darkened, changes in the same are not permitted and further failure to adhere to instructions Page 3 of 8 OA No. 330/137 of 2025 will render the OMR answer sheet as invalid. In compliance of the order passed in O.A. No. 1110/2016, the representation of the applicant was duly considered by the competent Authority and after giving detail reasoning, the same has been rejected by a speaking order.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 19.05.2025, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
6. Mr. Ankur Sharma, assisted by Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that if the applicant used whitener/eraser the OMR sheet, then the marks awarded to those question may not be counted in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors.(supra). The cancellation of the candidature of the applicant is not permissible in the eyes of law. The Rules did not permit the respondents to cancel the candidature of a candidate, even if, he used eraser/whitener in OMR Sheet. In the OMR sheet, no answer is cut/erased or overwritten by the applicant. The OMR sheet of the applicant was scanned by an electronic machine/device and thereafter, marks were calculated. When machine did not reject the OMR Sheet and calculated marks, how can there be any error in OMR sheet. The candidates, having lesser marks, have been appointed, but the applicant illegally and arbitrary was denied appointment. Before cancellation of the candidature of the applicant, no show cause notice has been issued to the applicant. Therefore, cancellation of the candidature of the applicant is wholly illegal and arbitrary. On the aforesaid grounds, the impugned order dated 19.02.2019 and 14.07.2016 are liable to quashed and set aside. Page 4 of 8
OA No. 330/137 of 2025
7. Per contra, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the during scrutiny of the OMR answer sheet, it was observed that the applicant had erased and tampered in Question No.77 of OMR sheet. This act is in direct violation of the instructions clearly printed on the OMR answer sheet, as well as the provisions of Notification No. 01/2012.
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA the instructions mentioned at serial numbers 5, 10, and 13 of the OMR sheet explicitly prohibit any alterations once a choice has been darkened. Any deviation from this instruction renders the OMR answer sheet invalid. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the respondents have considered each and every aspect of the matter. Hence, instant original application is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. It reflects from the record that earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1110/2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2018 with a direction upon the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant in light of the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 447 and also to pass a speaking and reasoned order, under intimation to the applicant. In compliance thereof, the respondents passed the order dated 19.02.2019, which is impugned in this Original Application. For better appreciation of the matter, the impugned order is quoted as under:-
Page 5 of 8
OA No. 330/137 of 2025 In compliance of Hon'ble CAT/ALD's direction dated 30.10.2018, after considering the case of applicant in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.01.2016 in civil appeal nos. 587-588 of 2016, Hanuman Dutt Shukla & others Vs State of UP & others. Therein apex court held as if the rules/recruitments rule applicable for the examination do not specifically provide for rejection of the answer sheet for valuation for use of whitener, then the said answer sheet can not be done rejected on the basis of submission of Advocate General of UP on the instruction of principal secretary (Home) submitted that no rules of prohibition for use of whitener/blade was framed by the State Government as well as such appointment will be done as an exceptional and one time measure. This will not be treated as a precedent for any other case. Whereas you were instructed along with others equally to adher the instruction as laid down on the back side of the OMR but You have failed to follow the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA prescribed Instructions as no. 2,3, 4, 5 & 13, hence your OMR sheet (Answer sheet) was declared invalid. There after competent authority of RRC/NCR/ALD who is empowered under para 19 taken in cognizance of your above omission under para 18- (i), (v) & (x) there upon not consider your candidature for Group 'D' posts against EN NO. 01/2012.
In view of the above facts and circumstances under existing rules provided in notification no. 01/2012, it is to inform that the consideration of the candidature is not feasible for the appointment of Group 'D' published post in grade pay Rs. 1800 in pay band Rs. 5200-29200 against EN NO. 01/2012, due to non adherence of prescribed instruction no. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 13 as laid down on the back side of OMR (answer sheet). Hence your claim for appoint is rejected by the competent authority of RRC/NCR/ALD.
10. Admittedly the applicant was allowed to participate in the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, during the scrutiny of the OMR answer sheet, it was found that the applicant had erased and altered the marked responses in bubbles No. 77. It reflects from the OMR Sheet of the applicant, which is annexed in the counter affidavit, the applicant had erased and marked new circle in Question/Answer No.77. The OMR answer sheet and the examination instructions (specifically clauses 5, 10, and 13) explicitly prohibit any changes to marked answers. Once a bubble is darkened, no alteration is permitted. These instructions also state that non-compliance would render the OMR sheet invalid. For better appreciation of the matter, the relevant instruction in OMR is quoted as under :- Page 6 of 8
OA No. 330/137 of 2025
5. जरूरत के वििरण सािधानी ऩूिक व ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक में भरना है ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक में बदऱाि की अनुमतत नह ीं है l
10. अभ्यर्थवयों को प्रश्नों का उत्तर िैकल्पऩक उत्तर ए बी सी या डी में से दे ना है प्रत्येक प्रश्न में सह उत्तर चुना है और िह अमर उत्तर ऩत्र में सह गोऱा रखना है एक बार रीं गे हुए गऱे को बदऱने की अनुमतत नह ीं है l
13. ऊऩर िर्णवत अनुदेशो के नह ीं ऩाऱन करने ऩर आऩकी ओएमआर उत्तर ऩत्रक अमान्य होगी और उनकी जाींच नह ीं की जाएगी
11. The act of tampering with or erasing marked bubble on the OMR sheet is a serious violation, as it undermines the integrity of the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA examination process. The applicant, having violated the specific instructions of the examination, cannot claim a vested right to appointment.
12. Further, the advertisement was issued in 2012 and panel has automatically come to an end after passing the period prescribed in recruitment rule and we are in 2025 and as such, no direction can be given at this stage for consideration of the case of the applicant as the validity of the select panel has come to an end with the efflux of time. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798, wherein it has been held as under:-
35. Further in the written submissions submitted on behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed on the circular dated 18-7-2005 to say that the currency of the panel published in the month of March 2014 is for a period of two years. Such period can be extended by the General Manager by one year in case of administrative exigencies.
36. Somewhat similar question was considered in a recent judgment dated 22-11-2018 of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar [U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar, (2019) 2 SCC 195 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 167] , whereby the Government Order contemplated that the wait-list can be operated only for a period of one year, deciding the said aspect, the Court held as under:
"12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the order dated 18-5-2018 [Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 2871] Page 7 of 8 OA No. 330/137 of 2025 passed by the High Court and other material placed on record. For the purpose of operating wait-list, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions from time to time. It is clear from the various Government Orders that wait-list period is valid only for a period of one year. Though requisition is made for making selection for 178 number of posts, but the appellant Commission, after declaring results of the examination, has made initial recommendation for substantive number of posts i.e. 156 posts vide letter dated 12-8-2010. It appears that the said list is prepared by including candidates who have submitted all the requisite documents within the period prescribed. Further recommendations were also made, but there is no reason for not computing the period of one year from 12-8-2010. When recommendations were made for substantive number of posts on 12-8-2010, we are of the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to be computed from 12-8-2010 but not from the last recommendation made for one post, vide letter dated 28- 8-2012. The reason for restricting 156 names in the initial recommendation vide letter dated 12-8-2010, is explained in para 11 of the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court".
37. Since the validity of the select panel has come to an end on the efflux of time, therefore, there cannot be any order to appoint the persons from such select list prepared way back in the year 2014 in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 15-12-2010. Such panel cannot be a perennial source of appointment.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned orders. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no help to him. No interference is warranted in the impugned orders.
14. Accordingly, instant original application is liable to be dismissed and as such, same is hereby dismissed.
15. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
16. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 8 of 8