Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Vinod Narmal vs Ministry Of Railways on 16 March, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1240/2014
Reserved on : 10.03.2015.
Pronounced on : 16.03.2015.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Vinod Narmal,
S/o Sh. Jasmer Singh,
R/o Vill. & P.O. Diwana,
Distt. Panipat Haryana. .. Applicant
(through Sh. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Advocate)
Versus
1. Ministry of Railways
Through General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Railway Recruitment Cell,
Northern Railway,
Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi-24. .. Respondents
(through Sh. S.P. Singh, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Respondent No.2 issued a Notice on 17.12.2010 for open market recruitment for posts in Pay Band-I with Grade of Rs.1800/- in the Divisions and Workshop units of Northern Railway. Written examination was held on 22.05.2012, which was successfully cleared by the applicant. He was called for physical examination and scrutiny of documents on 31.10.2012, which also he successfully cleared. Thereafter, he was called for medical examination on 05.12.2012. However, when the final result was declared on 08.07.2013, the applicants name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. He filed a RTI application on 11.12.2013 to find out the reason for his rejection. While he did not get any reply to the same, informally he has come to know that his candidature has been cancelled because he had signed the application in capital letters. He has, therefore, filed this O.A. seeking the following relief:-
(a) Quash/set aside impugned rule 9 of Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt/PRC/2010 issued by Northern Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 dated 17.12.2010 in so far as it pertains to the requirement of signatures of the applicant in non capital letters.
(b) Quash/set aside the impugned result dated 08.07.2013 qua the applicant.
(c) Direct/instruct the respondents to declare the applicant as a successful candidate in terms of Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt/PRC/2010 subject to the applicant qualifying the Medical Examination and clearing the scrutiny of the documents.
(d) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment in terms of Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt/PRC/2010 issued by Northern Railway, Railway Recruitment Cell, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024 dated 17.12.2010.
(e) Award cost of this application to the applicant.
2. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the Notice issued for inviting applications for the above recruitment clearly stipulated the general conditions. It was also mentioned in the same that mere selection and empanelment does not confer any right for appointment to the candidates and that admission of the candidates at all stages of recruitment will be purely provisional subject to their satisfying the prescribed conditions. As far as the applicant is concerned, it is true that he cleared the written examination and was called for PET, document verification as well as medical examination. However, during processing of his case, it was noticed that the candidate had signed his application in capital letters despite clear instructions given against this. Accordingly, the competent authority cancelled his candidature under Para-9 of Employment Notice which included signing of application in capital letters amongst other conditions.
3. In his written submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited certain judgments in support of his case. Thus, he has relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifdaullah Khan & Ors., JT 2011(11) SCC 367 in which the following has been held:-
Selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mention in an advertisement the same has to be scrupulously maintained. Their cannot be any relaxation in terms and conditions of the Advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. The position of law on this particular point. 3.1 Further, he relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 SCT 526 in which the following has been held:-
7.it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to he received whether sent through post or by any oilier mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the Co-ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected. 3.2 He further relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of T. Jayakumar Vs. A Gopu & Anr., JT 2008 (10) SC 530 to say that defects in the application can be examined at any time of the selection procedure. He also relied on the judgment dated 30.04.2013 of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jaswinder Singh Sidhu Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Civil Writ Petition No. 9101/2013) in which the following has been held:-
8. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondent-Commission in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the ground that his application was not received through proper channel and prior to the last date as was the requirement in terms of the specific stipulation contained in the advertisement. No merit. Dismissed. 3.3 On the basis of above citations, learned counsel has submitted that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure given in the advertisement and no modification in these conditions can be made by Court exercising power under Article-226 of the Constitution. Further, he submitted that the defect, if any, in the application form can be examined at any stage of the selection procedure and the principle of estoppel is inapplicable in such cases.
4. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. It is clear from the pleadings that the only reason for rejection of applicants candidature was that he had signed his application in capital letters. Learned counsel for the applicant, without going into the other grounds mentioned in the OA, placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.02.2012 of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr., [WP(C) No. 1004/2012 and CM-2212/2012]. He argued that the applicants case was squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in which the Honble High Court has ruled against rejection of application on the ground that signature of the candidate has been made in block capital letters.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this case was distinguishable from Neeraj Kumars case (supra) relied upon by the applicant because in Neeraj Kumars case the candidate had put his name in capital letters and had signed above that in capital letters. Further he relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Lachmi Narain etc. etc. Vs. UOI & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 714 in which it has been held as follows:-
If the provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory, the use of peremptory language in a negative form is per se indicative of the intent that the provision is to be mandatory.
6. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we find that in this case the candidature of the respondent for the post of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi had been rejected because the candidate had signed his application in capital letters. The respondents had then filed OA-3095/2010 before the Tribunal, which was allowed on 16.09.2011. This order was challenged by the DSSSB by means of Writ Petition (C) No. 1004/2012 before the Honble High Court of Delhi. During the course of hearing of this Writ Petition, Honble High Court had enquired from the petitioners therein as to the reason why candidates were being prohibited from signing in capital letters. They were informed that this was necessary to prevent impersonation. On considering this submission, Honble High Court had opined that impersonation can be prevented in several other ways, such as, affixation of photograph in the application form as well as admit card etc. Thereafter, they had ruled that the stipulation regarding invalidity of application on the ground that the applicant had signed in block capital letters was merely directory and not mandatory and Writ Petition was dismissed.
7. We are not convinced by the arguments of the respondents counsel that the present case is different from Neeraj Kumars case. On going through the judgment, it is clear that the ground for rejection of Neeraj Kumars candidature was the same, namely, that he had signed in block capital letters. Even reliance placed in Lachmi Narains case cannot be of any help to the respondents because in that case Honble Supreme Court had observed that if a provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can be held to be directory only in exceptional cases. Thus, the Honble Supreme Court had only directed to exercise caution while declaring any provision directory. However, in the instant case, the Honble High Court of Delhi after examining the provision under which the application of the applicant had been rejected had come to the conclusion that the condition of not signing in capital letters was merely directory and not mandatory. This was because they had been informed that this condition had been kept only to avoid impersonation which in the opinion of Honble High Court could have been done by other methods.
8. Thus, after considering the submissions of both sides, we are convinced that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the judgment in Neeraj Kumar relied upon by the applicant and deserves to be treated in the same manner. Other judgments mentioned above which were relied upon by the respondents also cannot be of much help to them. In those cases, it has been held that the selection process should be conducted strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. However, in Neeraj Kumars case Honble High Court of Delhi has found the condition of not signing in capital letters to be directory and not mandatory. Thus the conclusion is that it was not necessary to observe this condition. We also notice that Honble High Court of Delhi had taken note of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Bedanga Talukdars case relied upon by the respondents. The other judgments relied upon by the respondents were concerned with violation of mandatory condition of not submitting application within the prescribed time and are clearly distinguishable from the instant case.
9. The respondents counsel has also submitted that the applicant has put different signatures at different places i.e. he has signed differently in the application form, OMR sheet, document verification form and lastly and most importantly in the RTI application submitted by him. As far signing differently in RTI application is concerned, we do not agree with the respondents because the RTI application had been submitted by the applicant after rejection of his candidature and cannot be a ground for rejection of his candidature. Moreover, the respondents have rejected the candidature of the applicant for signing in capital letters as is evident from their reply. They cannot now take this new ground.
10. Accordingly, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment in terms of the Employment Notice dated 17.12.2010. On appointment, the applicant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation commensurate with his position in the merit list. These benefits may be extended to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/