Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Saitan Singh Gurjar vs M/O Railways on 20 January, 2023
OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 737/2015,
Original Application No. 752/2015
&
Original Application No. 806/2015
Order reserved on: 17.01.2023
Date of Order: 20.01.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
OA No. 737/2015
Gulmohammad Padiyar S/o Rahim Baksh Padiyar, aged about
29 years (D.O.B. 06.06.1986) by caste Deshwali (O.B.C.),
resident of Village & Post Kuchil, Tehsil Kishangarh, District
Ajmer (Raj).
...Applicant
Shri Iliyas Khan, counsel for applicant.
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Zone, North Western Railway, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell North Western
Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur-302006.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment) Railway
Recruitment Cell North Western Railway, Power House
Road, Jaipur-302006.
...Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 752/2015
Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Nanag Ram Kumhar, aged about 26
years, (D.O.B. 10.01.1989) by caste Kumhar (O.B.C.),
resident of V.P.O. Rampur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar-
301418 (Raj.)
...Applicant
Shri Iliyas Khan, counsel for applicant.
OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 2
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Zone, North Western Railway, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell North Western
Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur-302006.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment) Railway
Recruitment Cell North Western Railway, Power House
Road, Jaipur-302006.
...Respondents
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 806/2015
Saitan Singh Gurjar S/o Shyoji Ram Gurjar, aged about 21
years (D.O.B. 08.07.1994) by caste Gurjar (O.B.C.), resident
of Village Baradi, Post Dehlod, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk-
304025 (Raj.).
...Applicant
Shri Iliyas Khan, counsel for applicant.
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Zone, North Western Railway, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell North Western
Railway, Power House Road, Jaipur-302006.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment) Railway
Recruitment Cell North Western Railway, Power
House Road, Jaipur-302006.
...Respondents
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore, counsel for respondents.
OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 3
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 and OA No. 806/2015 are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts is involved in the aforesaid cases.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No. 737/2015 are taken up. OA No. 737/2015 has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"A. That by quashing result (Annexure A/1) in respect of the applicant, the respondents, in view of the eligibility of the applicant, may be directed to give appointment to the applicant on the post in pay band-1 (Rs 5200-20000) with Grade Pay Rs 1800 (Erstwhile Group D) with due benefits from the date other candidates of OBC category lower in merit allowed appointment.
B. That the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant in the OBC category taking into consideration the certificates dated 13.04.2015 and 11.07.2002 (bearing no. 488) which are issued by the competent authority and give him appointment on the post in pay band-1 (Rs 5200-20000) with Grade Pay Rs 1800 (Erstwhile Group D) with all consequential benefits.
C. That the respondents be further directed not to put the OBC certificate in dispute and if any shortcoming, the same may be completed /rectified in the interest of justice.
OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 4 D. Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper be also granted in favour of the applicant.
E. And cost be awarded in favour of the
applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case, (OA No. 737/2015), as stated by the applicant, are that respondents had issued an advertisement No. 03/2013 dated 14.12.2013 for several posts (erstwhile Group "D" posts) in Pay Band-1 (Rs. 5200- 20000) with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- and the applicant, who belonged to Other Backward Category (OBC), had applied for the same as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination held on 30.11.2014 and after qualifying the written examination, he appeared for Physical Efficiency Test (P.E.T.) on 27.02.2015 and thereafter, respondents issued a public notice for documents verification on 31.03.2015 and in pursuance to which, applicant was called for documents verification and medical examination, which was conducted from 21.04.2015 to 09.05.2015 and from 18.05.2015 to 25.05.2015. The applicant states that at the time of documents verification on 29.04.2015, respondents raised an objection towards the OBC certificate of the applicant that in the OBC certificate No. 488 issued by competent authority, which is issued as per Notification No. 12011/68/98-B.C. dated 27th October, 1999 by the Central OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 5 Government Sl. No. (68) on which caste of the applicant mentioned in the above notification is not mentioned, therefore, the certificate possessed by the applicant is not issued as per Notification of the Central Government. The applicant further states that at the time of document verification, he also produced OBC certificate issued as per notification of the Central Government in which serial no. (68) was mentioned at which, caste of the applicant is mentioned. Thereafter, respondents declared provisional Part Panel-I & II. The applicant further states that when he checked his status on the website of the respondents then his status has been shown as "Sorry You are not empanelled based on document presented during document verification, you are treated as "UR" candidate and marks obtained by you in written test is below qualifying marks for UR candidates."
Therefore, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the applicant under OBC category, he has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance on the ground that very object of the selection is to select the meritorious candidate amongst the eligible candidate, but the respondents rejected the candidature of the applicant on a very hyper technical ground, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. The applicant belongs to OBC category, which is clearly evident from the Notification issued by the Central Govt. as well as State Govt. For the mistake committed on OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 6 the part of the authority (which issued OBC certificate no. 488 dated 11.07.2002) by which he did not mention serial number in the OBC certificate at which the caste of the applicant is mentioned in the notification, the applicant should not be punished. Main purpose of producing the certificate is to show that the candidate who claims to be a member of the particular caste actually belongs to that category or not. Even otherwise, irrespective of the certificate issued by the Central or State Govt., the fact remains that the applicant belongs to OBC category, thus, his candidature is liable to be considered under OBC category. The applicant produced latest certificate dated 13.04.2015 issued by the competent authority at the time of document verification in which serial no. 68 at which caste of the applicant is mentioned in the notification, but the respondents did not consider it. Therefore, the applicant states that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant under OBC category taking into consideration the certificate dated 13.04.2015 produced by him at the time of document verification.
4. This Tribunal vide its order dated 26.11.2015 had issued notices to respondents and had passed interim orders to the extent that respondents were directed to keep one post vacant in the Pay Band-I Grade Pay 1800 under OBC OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 7 category pursuant to advertisement No. 03/2013 for the applicant and the said interim relief continued till date. 5(a). After issue of notices, respondents have also filed their reply stating that the applicant is not entitled for getting appointment in view of provisions contained in the Notification dated 14.12.2013. It is further stated that the applicant has failed to submit OBC Certificate in the format prescribed for appointment under Central Government at the time of filling online application form. He later, during document verification, produced OBC Certificate, which was issued on 13.04.2015 i.e. after the closing date of submission of application, which proves that at the time of filling online application form, applicant was not having valid OBC Certificate in required format. As such, in absence of proper OBC Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, the application form for the posts of Group-D category has been rejected and communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 06.10.2015 (Annexure A/1). Thus, any rejection in pursuance of the advertisement cannot be said to be illegal specifically when the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, has observed that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure which needs to be scrupulously maintained. The OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 8 respondents state that there were facilities of filling offline and online application forms and they received 745131 online applications forms and 164676 offline application forms out of which, after scrutiny, 89760 online application forms and 76706 offline application forms were rejected due to non- compliance of directions which were given in the notification. It is also stated that because in online application forms, photocopies of original / eligibility documents are not attached with the application forms, therefore, verification of filled information is not possible, and on the basis of information provided by the applicant in the application form, he was considered eligible for selection process and that document verification is the only process when information provided by the applicant and verification of his original document can be matched.
5(b). Respondents have further stated that applicant has filled his application form online, therefore, he was called for document verification, in which it was found that certificate of OBC category mentioned in the online application form by the applicant was not as per attachment no. 3 (Format of OBC certificate). Therefore, applicant was treated as unreserved category candidate because in scrutiny, all such type of candidates were treated as unreserved category candidates. It is also stated that after passing in PET, applicant was called OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 9 for document verification according to seniority list of OBC candidates, because applicant has filled that he belongs to OBC category. Thereafter, applicant appeared for document verification at RRC on 29.04.2015 but unfortunately, OBC certificate mentioned in the application form by the applicant was not as per the format of Central Government. Therefore, applicant was declared ineligible for OBC category. In the cut off list of unreserved category, the name of applicant did not find place in the merit, therefore, his name could not come on panel list.
5(c). Respondents also state that in online application form, applicant mentioned that he belongs to OBC category and he mentioned caste certificate no. 488, date of issue of certificate as 01.07.2002, issuing place of certificate Kishangarh and issuing authority of certificate as Tehsildar. Whereas, at the time of document verification, applicant produced another OBC certificate dated 13.04.2015. It is further stated that ignoring the directions given in notification for getting benefit of OBC, applicant has filled OBC certificate no. 488 in column no. 10 of the application form, whereas in this certificate column related to notify in Government of India category is blank. The respondents have also relied upon Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Prakash Singh & Anr. vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal No. OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 10 706/2014) decided on 08.10.2014 wherein it has been held that "condition no. 8.7(i) is one of the conditions mentioned in the employment notice and that non-compliance of such condition, it was always open to the competent authority to reject such application being incomplete. Therefore, the applicant has no claim for the said post and the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on the said ground itself and the interim order dated 26.11.2015 be vacated as their action is in consonance with the rules.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the submissions of the respondents. He further stated that the action of the respondents in not considering his candidature under the OBC category is contrary to their own advertisement and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The condition no. 13.0 of the advertisement itself provides for producing OBC certificate at the time of document verification and applicant has produced the same at the time of document verification on 13.04.2015 / 29.04.2015 in the appropriate format. He also stated that omission / mistake committed by the applicant at the time of filling online application form can be condoned as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779. The basic purpose of documents verification is to examine whether the applicant is OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 11 possessing the requisite qualification / status of reserved class or not and on the date of document verification, applicant produced OBC certificate in appropriate format as sought for by the respondents in the advertisement. The applicant successfully completed all steps of selection but he has not been considered in OBC category for appointment despite of having OBC certificate in appropriate format on the date of document verification. Applicant also stated that his category falls in both the list of OBC category as issued by the Central Govt. and State Govt. and applicant has produced his OBC certificate in the prescribed format on the date of document verification. The applicant states that judgment in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaulla Khan (supra), as cited by the respondents, is not applicable in the case in hand as facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case. It is further stated that in the cited case respondent / Saifudaulla Khan had never submitted any document / certificate of Physically category (at any point of time during selection procedure) of which he was claiming benefits, he submitted his certificate / identity card after completion of selection procedure but the applicant in the present case produced the OBC certificate at the relevant time in appropriate format. Thus, grounds of rejection are vague and need to be rectified and applicant be held eligible for appointment on Group-D post as per advertisement. In OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 12 support of his submissions, applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jaiprakash Rawat vs. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 713/2015) decided on 05.08.2022 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1691/2016) decided on 24th February, 2016.
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings minutely as well as the judgments cited by the parties.
8. The applicant and the respondents reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
9. The question which requires to be considered is whether the candidature of the applicant ought to have been cancelled on the ground of not submitting OBC certificate in prescribed format while submitting online application form, when he has already been protected by the interim directions and when no third party rights are affected.
10. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, the factual matrix of the case is that applicant being an OBC candidate and fulfilling the criteria as required, had applied OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 13 for Group-D post in pursuance to the notification No. 03/2013 dated 14.12.2013. He was given a call letter and had appeared in the written examination and had passed in the same and thereafter, he appeared in physical efficiency test, which also he cleared. Thereafter, he appeared for document verification on 29.04.2015. On the day of document verification, it was noted by the respondents that the OBC certificate no. 488, which was mentioned at the time of filling online application form was not in proper format as the said certificate was for employment for State Government and so he is not entitled for appointment. There was no dispute with regard to his being an OBC candidate, but the fact was that he did not submit the OBC Certificate as per the format required for employment in Central Government while filling his online application form. During document verification, he produced another certificate, as per the format of Central Government, but respondents failed to accept the same and did not consider his candidature. It is not the case of the respondents that the other OBC Certificate produced by the applicant for the purpose of Central Government during document verification is not from the competent authority.
11. After going through the case of the applicant, we see that the stand taken by the respondents is that as per provisions contained in the notification, it was clear that OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 14 without proper certificate in the case of SC/ST/OBC and/or physically handicapped, the application will be summarily rejected. They have also stated that the OBC Certificate produced by the applicant is not in prescribed format as required for OBC candidates applying for appointment to the posts under the Government of India as per Annexure-3 of the advertisement/notification dated 14.12.2013. Thus, in absence of the proper OBC Certificate issued by Competent Authority, the application of the applicant for Group-D posts has been rejected and the same was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 06.10.2015. Thus, as the candidature of the applicant was rejected as per specific condition mentioned in the notification dated 14.12.2013 and as such there is no illegality in rejecting the application form of the applicant.
12. As it is seen that the applicant belongs to OBC category and he is not that educated to understand that he has to produce which OBC Certificate for which employment as he had both the certificates one provided by the competent authority i.e. Tehsildar for employment in State Government format and number of which was submitted at the time of his online application form and the other certificate provided by the same Competent Authority i.e. Tehsildar for employment in Central Government format which he submitted during OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 15 document verification which was as per Central Government format. The respondents failed to accept the said OBC Certificate and his candidature was rejected. In fact, it was not the case of any fraud committed by the applicant in procuring the said certificate, but it was his inadvertent mistake while submitting his application form as he failed to submit the OBC Certificate required for Central Government employment.
13. As seen when the government itself provides for special reservation in case of SC/ST/OBC candidates and that they require help and support of the State and there are several schemes and concessions provided to them, a practical approach should have been adopted by the respondents as the applicant was possessing the OBC Certificate as per the format prescribed at Annexure-3 of the notification dated 14.12.2013 during his document verification and he should have been considered for appointment. It is not the case of the respondents that after a considerable lapse of time, the applicant has submitted the said OBC Certificate or that it is bogus or fraud or mischief was played by the applicant. In fact, the applicant on the day of document verification had produced the OBC Certificate as required as per the notification dated 14.12.2013, but the respondents failed to accept the same. Also, in the present case, no third party OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 16 rights are affected as the applicant is having interim protection in his favour vide order dated 26.11.2015 wherein one post of Group-D under OBC category in pursuance of advertisement No. 03/2013 dated 14.12.2013 is kept vacant for him.
14. It is trite law that even in administrative matters, if decision adversely affects a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provisions for giving an opportunity, the principles of natural justice is inbuilt. Though it is true that the advertisement clearly stated the candidates to be cautious in filling online applications and any mistake/error would debar such applications, but due to the bonafide mistake on the part of the applicant which he tried to rectify by producing the OBC Certificate as per format of Central Government during document verification, the respondents should have allowed the said correction, but the same was not done. It is clear that while filling the form, human error cannot be completely ruled out and the applicant, therefore, should not be penalized so harshly for such an error. A candidate whose marks is above cut off marks or is in merit deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only because of some error. As such, in the present case, the bonafide mistake committed by the applicant in submitting OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 17 OBC Certificate in State Government format at the time of submitting online application form deserves to be rectified/corrected and the same to be considered and he should be allowed to submit the OBC Certificate possessed by him of the Competent Authority as prescribed in Annexure-3 of the notification dated 14.12.2013.
15. We are in agreement with the judgments produced by the applicant especially in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (supra) to the effect that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. On the other hand, we do not agree with the judgments cited by the respondents being that of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan (supra) as well as Prakash Singh & Anr. (supra) as the facts of the said cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and that bonafide mistake deserves to be corrected.
OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 18
16. It is clear that a human error can be rectified provided no third party right is affected and we are in agreement with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Kavita Choudhary vs. Registrar (Exam) in D.B.C.S.A. (W) No. 1700/2017 vide its order dated 01.11.2017, wherein it has been held that a bonafide mistake which does not affect a third party should be allowed to be cured and rectification of a mistake would cause no prejudice. In the said judgment, reliance was placed on several judgments including State of Rajasthan vs. Datar Singh (D.B.S.A.W. No. 875/2012) dated 11.10.2017, Dinesh Kumar Mahawar vs. RPSC & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7159/2017) dated 27.01.2017. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of this Tribunal dated 07.10.2021 in Original Application No. 416/2013 in the case of Amit Kumar vs. Union of India as well as in the case of Gopal Lal Kumawat vs. Union of India & Ors. in Original Application No. 367/2016 decided on 02.08.2018. Reliance was also placed in an identical matter of Shimala Jat vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B.C.W.P. No. 906/2017, wherein in a similar matter the Hon'ble High Court had considered it appropriate to grant indulgence in case of the petitioner since it was not going to affect the rights of either party or third party in view of the interim protection given to the applicant and directed the respondents to carry out the correction as OA No. 737/2015, OA No. 752/2015 & OA No. 806/2015 19 desired by the petitioner and consider her case in further process of selection.
17. In view of the observations made herein-above, the action of the respondents calls for interference and they are directed to allow the applicants to submit OBC certificates, as were produced by them during document verification in the prescribed format and thereafter treat them under OBC category and pass appropriate orders in that respect and accordingly, allow the applicants to participate in further selection process, if any, in view of the interim protection granted to the applicants and if otherwise found suitable for the Group-D posts, they may be given appointment on the said posts with all consequential benefits. The said exercise be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. Accordingly, with these observations and directions, all the aforesaid Original Applications are allowed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/