Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Gaurav Bhardwaj vs M/O Railways on 5 October, 2017
ZB 0.A. NO. 291/00207/2015 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 291/00207/2015 DATE OF ORDER: 05.10.2017 1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. R. RAMANUJAM, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Gaurav Bhardwaj Son of Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma, Resident of Aged about 32 Years, Resident of Near New Post Office, Mayur Colony, Kota Junction, Kota, Rajasthan. .-Appplicant. (By advocate: Mr. Vikas Kabra) Versus 4. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, 2010, Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. Assistant Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, 2010 , Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ..Respondents. (By advocate: Mr. Anupam Agarwal.) 0.A. NO. 291/00207/2015 : i i ORDER (Oral)
Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. R. Ramanujam, Member{A) Heard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature on a technical ground, after he had already qualified the written test, physical efficiency test and also document verification with regard to eligibility criteria, only for the reason that he had attached to his application an IPO dated 25/02/2010 whereas the ~- employment notification was dated 27/02/2010. It is contended that no prejudice was caused to the respondents and the objection had not been raised at the time of permitting him to participate in the written test. Therefore, the cancellation of the applicant's candidature was arbitrary and without application of mind.
2, Learned counsel for the respondents would draw attention to the conditions No. 3.03 and 4.07 of the employment notification which are reproduced below:
3.03 The examination fee is non-refundable. It should be paid in the form of a crossed Demand Draft falid for a period of six months to be drawn at the main branch of any of the Nationalized Banks, or in the form of Crossed Indian Postal Order drawn in favour of 'Chairman or Member Secretary or Assistant Secretary, Railway Board' ER SenL UG ate Be EAN Oe, sey Loan LYLE EB OSS nee we OBE TLE Sa Sane ais APPR ED O.A. NO. 291/00207/2015 of concerned RRB as mentioned in the para 15 given below. The Bank Drafts/Indian Postal Orders should be payable at the place where the Railway Recruitment Board is situated. The Indian Postal Order/ Bank Drafts should not be obtained earlier to the date of issue of this Employment Notice or after the closing date of receipt of application.3
4.07 Applications which are eligible, incomplete, unsigned, signed in capital letters, not in prescribed format, without photo of candidate, not having IPO/DD or having IPO/DD purchased before date of issue of and after closing date of Employment Notice are liable to be rejected.
3. It is submitted that applicant had not complied with the aforesaid conditions regarding examination fee in as much as he had submitted an IPO obtained earlier than the date of the employment notice. Accordingly, the applicant's application for employment was rejected under condition No. 4.07.
4, Learned counsel for the applicant would, however, argue that the applicant had enclosed an IPO dated 25/02/2010 which had been obtained only 2 days before the employment notice. 'The objection raised by the respondents is hyper technical in as much as the respondents faced no inconvenience whatsoever for such reason. Indeed, the respondents had encashed the IPO and allowed the applicant to participate in the written test as well as the physical efficiency test which was tantamount to waiver of D®
0.A. NO. 291/00207/2015 the said condition. In any case, the respondents would be 4 estopped from invoking the said condition after the applicant had already qualified. If they wished to invoke this condition, it should have been done straightway when the applicant submitted his application along with the said IPO dated 25/02/2010.
5. We have carefully considered the issue involved in this OA. It is not disputed that the applicant had not strictly complied with condition no. 3.03 of the employment notice. He submitted an "ipo which carried a date prior to the date of issue of the employment notice. The respondents would have been fully justified, if they had refused to admit the applicant to the written examination. However, the objection has been raised after the applicant had duly qualified and after said postal order had also been encashed by the respondents.
6. In view of the above, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that since no inconvenience had been caused to the respondents and the applicant is otherwise fully qualified and eligible, his candidature could not be rejected on this ground after he emerged successful in the examination. Conditions such as the one being invoked by the respondents are generally imposed for administrative convenience with a view to o 5 . O.A. NO. 291/00207/2015 allowing adequate time to the authorities to realise the fee. If the IPO is too old, even if it was valid on the day it is submitted, it would have a shorter residual validity than the ones freshly bought. To that extent, the authorities would be required to act quickly in such cases as failure to do so would mean that the same could not be encashed after the validity. expired. However, in this case, the authorities had admittedly presented the IPO in time and got it encashed. They would, therefore, be estopped from invoking this condition. We accordingly hold that applicant is eligible to be considered for appointment in terms of his performance in the competitive examination. The respondents "are directed to process the claim of the applicant for appointment accordingly within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. 0.A.is allowed in the above terms. No costs. (SURESH KUMAR Mowe--,----_* : Le JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Vv