AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
This OA has been filed on 28.04.2014 Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against cancellation of the final selection of the applicant for Group ‘D’ post. The relief(s) claimed in Para 8 of the OA as under:-
“I. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the decision of the respondents cancelling the selection of the applicant for the Group ‘D’ post pursuant to notification No.01/2010 dated 19.12.2010.
II. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on the group ‘D’ post on account of finally qualifying the selection.
III. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
IV. Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
It is an admitted fact that the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad issued a vacancy notification RRC/NCR/01/2010 on 19.12.2010 for 4692 vacant posts in Pay Band-1of Rs. 5200-20200/- Grade Pay Rs.1800/-. The applicant applied for the aforesaid post and appeared in the Written Examination on 03.06.2012. Thereafter, he also appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test on 03.11.2012. The Document Verification was done on 21.01.2013 and the Medical Examination was conducted on 22.01.2013.
It is submitted by the applicant’s counsel that when final result was declared then it is found that the name of applicant was not mentioned in the result. The status was shown as pending by Annexure A-7. In January, 2014 he received the information that the result of the applicant has been cancelled. The applicant was never informed about any deficiency in his candidature or any reason, whatsoever, has led the respondent to cancel the result of the applicant. Without giving any reasonable opportunity, his result has been cancelled. Therefore, he filed the present OA for the relief mentioned in Para 1 of this OA.
The respondent opposes the claim of applicant by filing the counter affidavit on 06.07.2015. It is submitted by the respondent that at the time of Document Verification some new facts came into the knowledge but meanwhile the Medical Test took place. It was pointed out by the Verifying Official that the applicant did not follow the instructions prescribed for filling up OMR sheet as laid down on the top of OMR. It was strictly instructed that the candidate can use only “Blue/Black Ball Pen” and it was also mention in Column No. 13 of OMR sheet that in case the instructions are not followed then OMR answer sheet will be invalid and will not be evaluated. The applicant filled the OMR sheet by ‘Pencil’, hence, his result was shown on the website as pending due to necessity of re-examination on the above noted situation. The OMR sheet was re-examined by the Competent Authority and it is found that the applicant uses the Pencil, therefore, his result has been cancelled. In the aforesaid situation, the respondent prays to dismiss this OA.
It is not in disputed that the OMR sheet was given to all candidates at the time of examination. In the aforesaid sheets, the instructions were also attached. The copy of instructions has been submitted by the respondent at Page No. 17. It is mentioned in the top of the instructions “Please Read All Instructions Carefully Before Making Any Entry In The OMR Answer Sheet.” The aforesaid note has been mentioned in Capital Letters of ‘English’. The same has been mentioned in ‘Hindi’. All instructions No. 1, 2 & 3 are mentioned in English as well as Hindi both. In instructions No.2, it is mentioned that:-
“Use Blue/Black Ball Point Pen only. Pencil, Fountain Pen & Gel Pens are not allowed.”
In Para-13, it is clearly stated that:-
“Failure in adhering to the above instructions will render your OMR answer sheet as invalid and it will not be evaluated”.
Therefore, it appears that the applicant was very well-known the facts that he can use only Blue or Black Ball Point Pen and use of Pencil was strictly prohibited. The applicant was also aware of the fact that if he did not follow the instructions then his answer sheet will be invalid and will not be evaluated. The respondent has also submitted the photo copy of OMR sheet of the applicant. The original OMR sheet was also shown by the respondents’ counsel at the time of final argument on 16. 01.2024. The aforesaid answer sheet was also perused by the applicant’s counsel before the Court. It is not in dispute that the applicant’s use the Pencil. He did not use the Blue or Black Ball Point Pen. There is no any dispute that the OMR sheet having the signature of the applicant in English and also having his left-hand thumb impression. Therefore, it is clearly found that the applicant did not follow the instructions No.2. In the aforesaid of the OMR sheet, it was also mentioned that in Capital Letters that:-
“Use Blue/Black Ball Point Pen only.”
It is also mentioned in the upper part of the OMR sheet that:-
“Please read the instructions on the back side of the duplicate copy of this Answer Sheet.”
The instructions are mentioned in both languages i.e. ‘Hindi’ and ‘English’. Therefore, it is found that the applicant violated the Rule No.2. Hence, his Answer Sheet was invalid as per Rule 13 and he was not entitled to get the evaluation of his Answer Sheet. It is true that the aforesaid defect was found at later stage but only upon the basis of aforesaid, it cannot be said that the applicant was entitled to get the appointment. The action may be taken at any time when the violation of Rule was found.
Counsel for the applicant cited Vijay Pal and 22 Others, Writ A. No.21096 of 2018, Neutral Citation No.-2023:AHC:106025-DB and Judgment dated 16.04.2018 passed by the Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court in Writ A. No.2813 of 2017, Ran Vijay Singh and 34 Others along with other connected Writ Appeal. The aforesaid cases are not relevant in the light of facts of this case. The aforesaid cases were related to impersonation but in the present case it cannot be said that any right of the applicant has been illegally affected. There was no any question of violation of natural justice. The Rules, were clearly mention in the instructions as well as OMR sheet. The applicant was very well-known to the fact that if he uses the Pencil then he will not entitle to get the appointment. Hence, there was no any necessity for giving any show cause notice before rejecting his candidature, therefore, this OA having no any force. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.