AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Pyare, Member-(Administrative)
Shri Shiv Mangal Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue, an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 passed by Chairman Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad.
(ii) To issue a mandamus directing the respondents to further take the thumb impressions of both hands of the petitioner and properly match with the thumb impressions same was taken during the written and P.E.T. examination and properly inquire into the matter and accept the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Group ‘D’ of EN No.01/2013 if the thumb impressions will match of the petitioner during further inquiry in the interest of justice.
(iii) To pass any other order of direction as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has applied for the post of Group ‘D’ and personally appeared in each and every phase of examination, has been served with show cause notice dated 22.01.2016 regarding mismatch of thumb impression and finally without giving any opportunity to the applicant he has been debarred from all RRC/RRB examinations for appointment in Railways for Life Time. After qualifying the written examination on 02.01.2014 and physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 10.03.2015 the applicant has been called for document verification at DSA ground near Allahabad station on 14.09.2015. At the time of document verification the officer has taken bio-metric attendance of right thumb impressions of the applicant on the bio-metric attendance machine, while the applicant has been informed by the operator of the bio-metric attendance machine that during the written and PET examination he has given left thumb impression for the attendance. After declaring medically fit by the medical examination board, the applicant has been selected for the post of Group ‘D’. Subsequently the applicant received the show cause notice dated 22.01.2016 regarding the mismatch of thumb impression during the document verification, written examination, physical efficiency test, and asked to submit his explanation regarding the mismatch of thumb impression within 30 days. The applicant has submitted his reply on 12.02.2016 in which he has submitted that he has given the left thumb impression during the written examination and physical efficiency test while the operator of the bio-metric attendance machine has taken the right hand thumb impression during the document verification. The applicant is always ready to cooperate for further verification of the thumb impression and requested the respondents to give opportunity for verification and accept his candidature to appoint for the post of Group ‘D’. Without giving any further opportunity to the applicant to prove his thumb impression he has been debarred from all RRC/RRB examinations for appointment in Railways for Life time. The respondents have passed in impugned order dated 31.03.2016. The applicant has submitted his representation and in reply to the same the respondents have replied that the reply against the show cause notice has not been satisfactory and keeping in view the instructions contained in Railway Board’s letter no. E(RRB)/2001/25/1, dated 14.02.2002 (RRCB No.05/2002) the competent authority has decided to cancel the candidature of the applicant for the post of Group ‘D’ of EN No.01/2013 and also debarred him from all RRC/RRB examinations for appointment in Railways for life time.
Per contra the respondents have submitted that the applicant has given his declaration regarding thumb impression and signature in his own handwriting in column no.22 of the application form as “I hereby declare that all the statement made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. In the event of any information being found false or incorrect or myself being not eligible in terms of eligibility criteria during the selection/any part of the recruitment, by candidature/appointment is liable to be cancelled/terminated without any notice at any stage even after empanelment”. But it was found that the thumb impression taken for biometric attendance in written examination did not match with the thumb impression affixed in physical efficiency test (PET). The competent authority of RRC, Allahabad decided to cancel the applicant’s candidature for EN No.01/2013 as well as debarring him from all RRC/RRB’s examinations of Railway for life time as per extent rules and was duly informed to the applicant. It is submitted that during document verification and medical fitness the thumb impression taken on written, PET were different and also does not match to each other. The candidature of the applicant was found inconsistence to the existing rules, due to violation of para 18 and 18/1A of EN No.01/2013, as well as contrary to his declaration given in application in column no.22 hence the applicant’s candidature was rejected for appointment of Group ‘D’ post. The applicant has filed the instant original application without giving prove of violation of existing rules as provided in EMP No.01/2013 and action taken by competent authority by RRC/NCR/ALD was in consonance of existing rules with regard to recruitment of Group ‘D’ post against EN No.01/2013, hence the applicant has miserably failed to establish his case on the facts as well as in violation of rules, so the instant application under reply is devoid of merits and be dismissed with costs.
In their rejoinder affidavit the applicant has reiterated almost the same facts which have been given in the original application. In the supplementary affidavit the applicant has submitted that in the examination of Assistant Loco Pilot in Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai the applicant has qualified the written and aptitude test, he has been declared successful on 30.06.2016 for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The aforesaid examination was conducted without Bio-metric Attendance Machine, but the applicant has been withheld for further verification by impugned order dated 31.03.2016.
We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
The applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
i) OA No.1112 of 2016 in the case of Dharamjeet Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others dated 01.09.2016.
ii) OA No.548 of 2016 in the case of Pankaj Singh Vs. General Manager and Another dated 02.06.2023.
iii) OA No.34 of 2016 in the case of Rama Shankar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Another dated 07.12.2023.
iv) Writ-A No.21096 of 2018 in the case of Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs. Union of India and 3 Others dated 16.05.2023.
OA No.1112 of 2016 was decided by this Tribunal on 01.09.2016 in which the issue involved is reproduced below:-
“It is bring into your notice that your thumb impression during document verification did not match with written and PET examination. It means someone else had appeared in your place in these examinations impersonating your candidature." Accordingly, the applicant was given 30 days time to reply this memorandum dated 27.01.2016. Counsel for the applicant states that after getting the memorandum dated 27.01.2016, he has given reply vide letter dated 10.02.2016 and the respondents after getting the reply, has Issued a letter dated 02.05.2016, at page No. 16, whereby the respondents have debarred him from appearing in all RRCs/ RRBs examinations for appointment in Railways for life time.”
The operative portion of the above judgment is reproduced below:-
“Hence, the respondents are directed to. re-test the thumb impression as well as the signature of applicant by another laboratory and by handwriting expert and if the case of Impersonation is not being established, the applicant will be given appointment, as he had already selected by the respondents, This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months, as prayed by respondents' counsel, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Till the above sald process of settling the issue of impersonation is not being completed by the respondents, the applicant shall not be debarred from appearing in the examination conducted by the RRBs/RRCS.”
OA No.548 of 2016 which was decided by this Tribunal on 02.06.2023 was similar to the issue involved in OA No.1112 of 2016 alongwith some other OAs. This Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and 34 others Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 16.04.2018 in Writ Petition No. A No.2813 of 2017 and other connected writ petitions and in the case of Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs. Union of India and 3 others in Writ A No.21096 of 2018 decided on 16.05.2023 have found that in the case of Vijay Pal, the opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered with other materials available on record and accordingly the respondents were directed to re-test the thumb impression as well as the signature of applicant by another laboratory and by another handwriting expert, if the case of impersonation is not established, the applicant will be given appointment, as he had already been selected by the respondents.
The applicant shall not be debarred from appearing in the examination conducted by the RRBs/RRCs.
OA No.34 of 2016 decided by this Tribunal on 07.12.2023 the similar matter was allowed partly to the extent that debarment of the candidate was quashed.
The operative portion of the order reads as under:-
“Since the applicant was never issued any appointment order and his candidature was rejected when the recruitment was still in its culminating stages, we are of the considered view that the present case requires no intervention of the Tribunal. However, it will certainly be an indelible blot upon the applicant's career if the order dated 31.03.2016 is made to sustain. Since we have already held that the applicant was not required to be given any exhaustive explanation for the rejection of his candidature since his candidature was rejected along with more than 300 candidates during the course of recruitment process and he was not yet given the appointment, similarly we also hold that it would inflict severe hardship upon the applicant if he is made to suffer on account of issuance of order dated 31.03.2016 in the garb of which the applicant has been debarred from appearing in future exams of railways just because he approached before this Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance.”
The Writ–A No.21096 of 2018 decided on 16.05.2023 by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vijay Pal and 22 Others Vs. Union of India and 3 Others have allowed the writ petition and respondents were directed to appoint the petitioners on Group-D post forthwith. The above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad was also based on decision rendered in the Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), Bhupendra Singh (Supra) as well as Rajesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others.
On the basis of above consideration, the applicant has requested to set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 and direct the respondents to allow the applicant to join on Group ‘D’ post of EN No.01/2013 and also quash the debarment of the applicant from appearing in future examination conducted by RRB/RRC.
The respondents have relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
i) In the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 472 wherein the Hon’ble court held as under:-
“A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of In the Constitution, he has only a right to be considered therefore. Consideration of the case individual of an candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in but would terms of the existing rules strict adherence thereto be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage candidates otherwise." concerned of the and not otherwise.”
ii) In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. S.G. Kutturappa & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 409 wherein the Hon’ble court held as under:-
“…..The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. It cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the Respondents on each occasion and, thus, the Respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given. [See Escorts Farms Ltd., Previously known as M/s Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. vs. Commissioner. Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and Others [(2004) 4 SCC 281, Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala (2004) 6 SCC 311, A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others (2004) 7 SCC 112] and Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands vs. Munnu Barrick and Others (2005) 2 SCC 237].”
iii) In SLP (Civil) Diary No.41861/2023 In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vijay Pal & Ors. in which the court has held as under:-
“ Delay condoned.
Issue notice returnable within six weeks.
In the meantime, there shall be stay of the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court.
And on the basis of above, the respondents have submitted that the issue raised by the applicant is devoid of merit and on the basis of above discussions and citations by Hon’ble Apex Court the original application should be dismissed with costs.
We have considered the rival submissions, verified the documents available in the original application and analyzed the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
The case of Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs. Union of India and 3 others in Writ-A No.21096 of 2018 decided on 16.05.2023 of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has discussed the issues involved in the cases relied upon by the applicant and allowed the relief to applicant (Vijay Pal and Others).
The entire case of applicant is based on the case of Vijay Pal and 22 others Vs. Union of India and 3 others in Writ A No.21096 of 2018 decided on 16.05.2023. The above judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.41861 of 2023 in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vijay Pal & Ors.
On the basis of decision in the case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 472 (Supra), Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others Vs. S.G. Kutturappa & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 409 (Supra) and in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vijay Pal & Ors.(Supra), we found that the original application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the original application is dismissed. No Costs.
All the related MAs stands disposed of.