Hem Raj Meena vs Union Of India & Others

Manjula Das, J

The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief(s):-

"i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the rejection information dt. 12.12.2014 available on the web-site (Annex. A/1) by which case of the applicant has been rejected, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to issue the appointment order to the applicant for suitable posts at an early date with all the consequential benefits from the due date i.e. from the date of issuance of the appointment letters to the similarly situated persons.

ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."

The applicant participated in the recruitment for the Group-D category post in the Northern Railway. He was successful in the written test and the physical endurance test. However, during the course of verification of documents, the respondents raised a doubt and referred the matter to the Forensic Document Expert. He opined that the hand writing and signatures on the documents, namely, the OMR answer sheet, the application at the initial stage and document verification data, did not match with each other.

Respondents in their reply submitted that the admission of the candidate at all stages will be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions. Applicant appeared in the written examination and PET which were qualifying in nature. Thereafter, he was called for document verification and medical examination. It was also made clear to him that calling of candidates for document verification does not confer any right upon the concerned candidate for medical examination or appointment on any post under the respondents. The Forensic Document Expert conducted verification of documents and during this process it was observed that applicant's signatures on the application form and documents did not match.

Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Satpal Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue raised in the instant OA is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 3638/2013 titled Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & anr. dated 09.11.2021 where this Tribunal after meticulously considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties directed as follows:-

"10. The grievance raised before this Tribunal is that the applicant is not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of the opinion of the so called expert. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that it would meet the ends of justice if the documents annexures R-1 to R-3 be sent to the CFSL for examination by the Railway authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. On receipt of the request of the Railway authority, the CFSL shall give their report in this regard within a period of six weeks thereafter to the Railway authority, on the basis of which the Railway authority shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant in Group-D post."

In view of the above, we are satisfied that this OA can also be disposed of in terms of the directions given in OA No. 3628/2013 as reproduced above. Accordingly, respondents are directed to send the documents of the applicant to the CFSL for examination within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the request of the Railway authority, the CFSL shall give their report in this regard within a period of six weeks thereafter to the Railway authority, on the basis of which the Railway authority shall take a final decision as regards the employment of the applicant in Group-D post.

With the above observations, the OA stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.