Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Karmaveer Meena vs Railway Recruitment Board on 21 May, 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 2 : .
0.A./256/2024 (JAIPUR) No of Adjournment:
[ RECRUITMENT ] .
Court No.: 1 Order Dated: 21/05/2024 KARMAVEER MEENA Vs RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD For Applicant(s) Advocate : Ms Pragya Seth for Shri Kamlesh Sharma For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Manu Bhargava Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal It is the second round of litigation.
Candidature of the applicant was rejected by the respondents railway at the time of document verification on the ground that there was difference between online and offline disability certificate submitted by the applicant. He was granted opportunity to get the discrepancies corrected, accordingly, the applicant submitted the corrected disability certificate on 06.10.2023, but the same was again rejected against which he had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 112/2024 before the Single Bench of this Tribunal. This Tribunal had _ directed the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant submitted along with the corrected disability certificate. In compliance of the above direction, the respondents considered his representation as well as the corrected disability certificate, but rejected the same by passing a speaking order.
The applicant had filed his disability certificate dated 10.07.2017 and had filled his disability as LD-One Leg (OL). On 04.10.2023, at the time of document verification, the certificate mentioned in the online application was not submitted, in its place amended disability certificated dated 26.06.2023 was submitted which reflected his disability as LD-Both Leg (BL). Thereafter, another amended disability certificate shown LD-
Left Lower Limb was submitted by the applicant after the designated date for document verification had expired.
The respondents in the impugned order have observed and held that the applicant is submitting different disability certificated reflecting different disabilities and accordingly rejected his candidature. We have perused the record annexed by the applicant, there is one disability certificate dated 10.07.2017 annexed as Annexure-A/3 wherein' the _ disability mentioned is (Muscular Dystrophy) 40%, second disability certificate dated 01.02.2018 annexed as Annexure-A/4 wherein disability shown as Muscular Dystrophy, Both Leg and 45%, yet another disability certificate dated 26.06.2023 annexed as Annexure A/5 where again disability shown as Muscular Dystrophy, Both Leg 45% whereas the applicant in the online application form uploaded his disability certificate dated 10.07.2017 and had filled LD-One Leg (OL) as type of his disability.
In Para 16.3 of the notification, grounds for rejections are mentioned which is reproduced below:
16.3 INVALID APPLICATIONS / REJECTIONS:-
Online applications are liable for rejection on the following grounds amongst others:
a. Invalid photos on account of Black and White photo, photo with cap or wearing Goggles or covered head. Photos which are disfigured, small size, full body, showing only one side view of the face, unrecognizable photos, Photostat copy of photo, group photo, selfie photo, photo taken by mobile, morphed photo and online application without photo among others.
b. Signature in capital/block/disjointed letters.
Cc. Not possessing the prescribed qualification for the post(s) as on the closing date for registration of online application i.e as on 12.04.2019.
d. Overaged or underaged or Date of Birth wrongly filled.
e. Multiple applications to different Raiways or to same Railway. In such case, all applications will be rejected and such candidates will be debarred from future RRB/RRC exams.
f. Candidate's name figuring in the debarred list of any RRB / RRC.
g. Incomplete or incorrectly filled application. h. Any other irregularities which are observed and considered as invalid by RRB/RRC.
Besides this, the Single Bench of this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider his representation and amended disability certificate in the interest of justice and the respondents complied with the order of this Tribunal and pass a detailed speaking order, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
LOK RANJAN RANJANA SHAHI MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /yma/