Union Of India And Ors vs Rajnish Kumar Singh

Nilu Agrawal, J

Petitioner is the Railways, aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2016, passed in O.A. No. 656/2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna

Bench, Patna by which the claim of the applicant/ respondent for appointment with consequential benefits was allowed.

The sole respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had sought direction to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Mahendru

Ghat, Patna to declare the applicant successful in the written examination held in pursuance to the advertisement issued for appointment on the post of

Assistant Loco Pilot as he secured 77.34 marks, which was more than the cut-off marks of general candidates, i.e. 52.67, in whose favour

appointments were made. The respondent Rajnish Kumar Singh also sought direction for issuance of letter of appointment with all consequential

benefits.

The facts of the case, is that an advertisement was published vide Centralized Employment Notice No. 1/2010 on 30.01.2010. The respondent also

applied and appeared in the written examination on 06.06.2010 bearing Roll No. 28101011005579 Control No. 55044087. The result of the examination

was declared on 01.02.2011, but the name of the respondent did not figure in the select list. However, on an application under Right to Information

Act he received information on 07.05.2012 that the cut-off marks for unreserved category was 52.67, whereas the respondent had obtained 77.34

marks. It was also mentioned that since the respondent did not mention the date of issuance of Indian Postal Order (IPO) for application fee, his

candidature was rejected.

Learned counsel for the Railways, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha submits that the respondent had not filled up the date of issue of IPO in his application

form and, thus, his candidature for selection has been rejected. In this connection, he pointed out Clause 4.07 of the advertisement, which is extracted

below:

“Applications, which are ineligible, incomplete, unsigned, signed in capital letters, not in prescribed format, without photo of the candidate, not

having IPO/ DD or having IPO/DD purchased before the date of issue of and after closing date of Centralized Employment Notice are liable to be

rejected.â€​

He emphatically submits that since the respondent did not fill up the date of the issue of IPO his candidature for selection has been rightly rejected.

The advertisement as well as the aforementioned Clause in no way specifies the date of the IPO to be filled up in the application form by the

candidates. Another Clause 5.03 of the advertisement, which is relevant under the heading “Enclosuresâ€​ states as follows:

“5.03 A valid Indian Postal Order or the Bank Draft for the amount as prescribed in the Employment Notice.â€​

Thus, from the plain reading of the aforesaid clauses of the advertisement, the deposit of IPO was to be mentioned, but on hyper-technicality the

candidature of the respondent had been rejected by the Railway authorities. Moreover, the petitioner had enclosed the IPO which carries the name of

the post office, the serial number, the amount. The authorities had even encashed the IPO but on a contrived and trivial ground of not mentioning date

of issuance of IPO, the respondent/applicant, who had secured marks much higher than the cut-off, was denied appointment, which shows a mindless

exercise of the Railway authorities, which caused injustice to a deserving candidate.

The learned Tribunal was correct in allowing the OA. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 before the Tribunal were directed to declare the respondent

successful in the written examination and as per the marks his position in the merit-list be determined and issue appointment letter within a period of

two months. The notional seniority of the respondent would be his position in the merit-list, but he would not be entitled to back wages as held by the

Tribunal in the said OA. No error is found in the order of the Tribunal. Such action of the Railways of non-issuance of appointment letter to a

meritorious and deserving candidate is a wholly arbitrary act on the part of the Railway authorities and for such hyper/ minor technicality, the rejection

of the meritorious candidates would cause a dent in the image of the Railways and all its recruitment and appointment would be under scanner before

the public. Such arbitrary action cannot be condoned without awarding suitable compensation. Hence, the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board,

East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, Patna is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent Rajnish Kumar Singh within a period of two

months. Order passed in OA No. 656/2012 dated 30.03.2016 is directed to be implemented forthwith.

Writ is dismissed with the directions aforesaid.