Deepu B.K. vs Union of India

Pursuant to the Employment Notification No. RRC 01/2012 dated 24.08.2012, the petitioners made an application for selection to the notified posts. The petitioners were informed that they had passed the written examination and also passed the Physical Efficiency Test. However, they were not called for certificate verification. In the meantime, a fresh notification No. RRC 02/2013 dated 21.09.2013 was issued to fill up 5,450 vacancies in Southern Railway and Integral Coach Factory. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an application before the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) seeking the following relief:

(a) seeking a direction to the first respondent to publish a Merit List based on the written examination and physical efficiency test conducted pursuant to Employment Notification No. RRC 01/2012 dated 24.08.2012 and appoint the applicants as against 5450 vacancies notified vide Employment Notification No. RRC 02/2012 dated 21.09.2013 from out of the said merit list;

(b) consequently forbear the 1st respondent from commencing the selection process by conducting written examination and physical efficiency test for the applicants who have applied pursuant to the Employment Notification No.RRC 02/2012 dated 21.09.2013 for filling up 5,450 vacancies in Southern Railway and Integral Coach Factory.

The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that since they have cleared the written examination as well as the Physical Efficiency Test, they were entitled to notice for certificate verification and if they were not found fit, they could have been considered for appointment against the subsequent notification without holding a test. It was also contended by the petitioners that the list was not published and as such, they were not in a position to know as to how much marks they have obtained in the test. Thus, a direction be given accordingly.

The respondents, in their reply before the Tribunal, submitted that based on performance (merit) in the written test and also having regard to the available vacancies, 4,299 candidates were called for document verification; the applicants could not be called for document verification as they did not fall within the merit list of 4,299, although three times, the number of vacancies were called for the same. None of the applicants fell within the zone of consideration.

The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, held as under:

x x x x x It is seen that out of 11,718 candidates who attended the PET, 9,262 candidates got through the PET which was only qualifying in nature and among them, based on performance (merit) in the written test, 4,299 candidates (list in Annexure R/7) were called for document verification. The merit order list was published in the Notice Board of RRC apart from uploading the same in the website of RRC, www.rrcchennai.org.in. The applicants were not called for document verification as they did not fall within the merit list of 4,299. Apparently, the applicants missed seeing the website of RRC or the notice board and thought that the results had not been published. This forum cannot give a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for the vacancies notified vide Notification No.RRC 02/2012 dated 21.09.2013 without their applying in response to the Notification.

It was further held that the applicants cannot turn back and question the selection process after having participated in the examination.

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners/applicants could not obtain sufficiently high marks to fall within the zone of consideration. It is a well settled principle of law that a candidate has a right to participate in the selection but, not to claim appointment on the ground that he has passed one part of the test. If the petitioners/applicants have failed to come within the zone of consideration, they cannot claim to be aggrieved as they were not called for document verification.

It is found that the result of the written examination was uploaded in the website of the Railway Recruitment Cell in www.rrcchennai.org.in and individual communication was also sent to the successful candidates, calling for document verification. The petitioners cannot question, at this stage, the list. The petitioners cannot be permitted to argue that each and every candidate must be informed individually, the marks obtained by them. In a test where 4,08,334 eligible candidates applied, after scrutiny, 1,58,500 attended the written test and 73,733 passed the written test. It is not feasible to intimate the marks obtained by them in the written test individually. Therefore, in further scrutiny, the candidates who obtained sufficient marks to fall within the zone of consideration were considered. The selection is proper, objective and does not require any interference. Thus, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, which is sought to be impugned in this writ petition.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.