Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi OA No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi OA No.695/2015 Reserved on :08.12.2015 Pronounced on:06.05.2016 Hon’ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Hon’ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J) 1. Krishan S/o Shri Hemraj Village PO Rewari Khera, Tehsil Bahadurgarh Distt Jhajjar, State of Haryana 124504. Roll No.50064110. 2. Sateesh Singh S/o Shri Chander Pal Singh Village Chhaprouli, Patti Dhandhan (Arya Nagar), Distt. Bagpat U.P. 250617. Roll No.20004908. 3. Sudhir Kumar S/o Shri Bhoop Singh Village PO Mehrana, Distt Jhajjar, Haryana Pin 124139. Roll No.20043181. 4. Surender S/o Shri Gulab Singh Village Rewari Khera, Tehsil Bahadurgarh Distt Jhajjar, State of Haryana 124504. Roll No.20070402. ...Applicants. (By Advocate:Shri Harsh Vardhan Sharma) Versus 1. Secretary, Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001. 2. Assistant Personnel Officer, RCC Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110024. ...Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri Shailendra Tiwary) (OA No.695/2015) (2) ORDER Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The four applicants of this OA are before this Tribunal, because their candidature with the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC, in short) for its Open Recruitment Examination has been rejected, in spite of all the four applicants having claimed to have qualified at all the stages of recruitment, and without explaining the disqualification, if any, which has been alleged to be not only illegal, but also against the basic principles of natural justice, besides being arbitrary, and based on the whims and fancies of the respondents. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. In response to the Advertisement issued through Annexure-A, the applicants had applied to the RRC, Northern Railway, and the Admit Card had been issued to them. A written examination was conducted, and all the four applicants qualified in the said examination, and they were later even called for verification of their documents, and medical examination etc. though through letters Annexure- B (Colly). However, when the results were announced the computer downloaded copy of the results having been annexed at pages 21, 25, 31 and 35 of the Paper Book, the applicants found that their cases had been rejected, by showing the legend in the status column as “Case rejected by the Experts”. Thereafter, the applicants represented to the respondents through letter dated 04.02.2015 (Pages 37 to 40 of the Paper Book) by Speed Post, but they received no response. Hence this O.A. 3. The applicants have submitted that the respondents neither provided any specific reason as to on what basis, their cases were rejected, nor any opportunity was provided to them to explain anything before their (OA No.695/2015) (3) disqualification, and in such circumstances, the action of the respondents was hit by bias, mala fide , unreasonableness and lack of objectivity. 4. The applicants have taken the ground that they are fit, and upto the mark of the standard prescribed by the respondents in their recruitment notice, and were entitled for being selected, and placed in the order of merit, and the said act of the respondents is prejudicial to their interests, and the rejection of their candidature was an infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In the result, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs, and interim relief, though the interim relief was never granted to them: “8. Relief Sought A) To issue an appropriate order or direction to Respondents to call the records in relation to the recruitment process under advertisement No.220-E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 of the applicants; and B) To issue an appropriate order or direction to the Respondent to consider the applicants/petitioners in merit in the final selection list for the posts advertised under advertisement No. 220-E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 in accordance with law; and D) Pass such and other orders, as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” “9. Interim Order, if any, prayed for a) issue appropriate order and/or directions to Respondents to STAY the selection procedure for the post advertised under advertisement No.220-E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 b) issue appropriate order and/or directions to Respondents to allow the petitioners be consider provisionally for the group D post advertised under advertisement No.220-E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 till the disposal of this O.A.” (OA No.695/2015) (4) 5. The respondents filed their counter reply on 10.07.2015. They took a preliminary objection that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the applicants to file the present OA, as no statutory, constitutional, or enforceable right of the applicants had been infringed by the respondents, and, therefore, the OA deserves to be dismissed. They had also raised a further preliminary objection that the OA is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, inasmuch as the applicants have not impleaded any person, who is likely to be adversely affected, if their prayers are allowed, as an opposite party respondent, and, therefore, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed in limine. 6. It was further submitted by the respondents that the Employment Notification, in pursuance to which the applicants had applied for, had clearly stipulated that the candidate should fill up the Application Form in his/her own handwriting. It was further made clear that the admission of the candidate at all stages of recruitment will be purely provisional, subject to his satisfying the prescribed conditions. It was admitted that the present applicants had appeared in the Written Examination, followed by the Physical Efficiency Test, both of which were qualifying in nature. Thereafter, they were called for the verification of documents, and Medical Examination. During that process, it was decided by the Three Member Committee of the Railway Officers to make a reference for matching of the hand- writing/signatures of the applicants on the relevant papers i.e. Application Form, OMR Sheet and the Document Verification Proforma. 7. It was pointed out that the Document Examination Expert had advised that the writing/signatures of the applicants on the relevant documents do not match, and, accordingly their cases were rejected by the Competent (OA No.695/2015) (5) Authority, i.e. Chairman/RRC, and their status was uploaded on the RRC website. It was reiterated that since the candidature of the applicants at all stages was only provisional, and, therefore, on receipt of the Document, Expert’s report regarding mis-match of the handwriting/signatures of the candidates, the status was appropriately uploaded on the website of the RRC/Northern Railway, regarding the rejection of their candidature on the basis of the Documents Verification report, as submitted by the Forensic Document Expert, duly nominated by the Government of India. It was submitted that the plea of the applicants in the present O.A. cannot be accepted, as the respondents have acted as per rules, and any deviation from the same for any specific individuals, would not be justified, and is against the uniform policy adopted by the Administration. 8. In regard to the plea of the applicants that they had not been granted any opportunity of hearing, and that the respondents had not followed the principles of natural justice before cancellation of their candidature, the respondents had cited the following three cases in support of their contention that there was no need to provide them any opportunity of hearing in the given circumstances:- 1) Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines, and Another vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965. 2) Umrao Singh Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, (1994) 4 SCC 328. 3) Syndicate Bank & Others vs. Venaktesh Gururao Kurati, JT (2006) 2 SC 73. 9. The respondents had, therefore, prayed that the OA is bereft of any merit, and the same may be dismissed. (OA No.695/2015) (6) 10. The applicants filed their rejoinder on 02.12.2005, more or less reiterating their contentions, as already made out in the OA, and submitting that the respondents have not brought forward any proof that any Committee of the Railway Officers, as stated by the respondents, had ever been constituted, and any papers had been sent for examination by Forensic Document Expert, nominated by the Government of India, and as to whether any report of any such expert exists or not. It was reiterated that the rejection of their candidatures was purely based on the whims and fancies of the respondents, and no explanation on that report had been sought from them, before taking any adverse decision, and that the respondents have failed to observe the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem in rejecting their candidatures, and that they have not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. It was also submitted that the respondents have suppressed important facts and documents, and have neither produced any expert report, nor explained their actions. It was, therefore, submitted that the action taken by the respondents in cancelling their candidatures lacks transparency, and that they have even suppressed or concealed the important facts from this Tribunal and they have failed to produce any report of the Expert or of any Committee before this Tribunal. It was, therefore, again prayed that this Tribunal may refer their papers and documents to any prestigious scientific laboratory like Delhi Police F.S.L., or C.F.S.L., for comparison of the thumb impressions and handwriting of applicants, in order to rule out any ambiguity, and had prayed that the OA deserves to be allowed.