Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 739 (ALL)

Ravi Shanker Maurya v. Union of India

2023-03-20

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the Railways and perused the record. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement dated 11.8.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''C.A.T.') in Original Application No. 101 of 2016 by which the application of the petitioner against cancellation of his candidature was rejected. 3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order impugned is absolutely erroneous and arbitrary. The factual matrix of this case is as below:- (i) The Railway Recruitment Cell, North-Central Railway, Allahabad issued an employment notice No. 1 of 2013, whereby applications were invited for filling up several categories of Class-IV post in Railways. (ii) The petitioner also submitted his application in pursuance of this employment notice and he was also allotted Roll Number as 1210118369. The petitioner, after appearing in written test, was declared successful and thereafter he also qualified physical efficiency test held on 10.3.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was not called for medical test and no reason was given to the petitioner even in reply to his application under Right to Information Act, therefore, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 101 of 2016 before the C.A.T. (iii) In reply to the above original application, the Railways had filed a short reply and in paragraph No.6 of the said short reply, it was stated by the Railways that the petitioner had filled up declaration column in OMR sheet wrongly which amounted to concealment of his identity in examination and constituting an infringement of prescribed instructions, therefore, for this reason the petitioner was not called for medical examination as well as for verification of his documents. The Railways along with its reply also brought on record a copy of the application form, submitted by the petitioner, as well as photocopy of OMR sheet of the petitioner. The Railways along with its reply also brought on record a copy of the application form, submitted by the petitioner, as well as photocopy of OMR sheet of the petitioner. (iv) After considering the aforesaid pleadings, the C.A.T. rejected the original application of the petitioner by order dated 11.8.2017 on the ground that in the OMR sheet there was specific direction which is being reproduced below:- "Copy of the Declaration given in First page of your Question Booklet in the space given in the OMR answer sheet. Your candidature shall be cancelled if you do not copy the Declaration. You must put your signature on OMR sheet at item no.13." And the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected as the above condition was not directory but mandatory. 4. Learned Senior Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner contended that though in Column No.10 of OMR sheet, it is mentioned "In your own running handwriting reproduce the Declaration as given in first page of the question booklet in the space given below either in Hindi or in English.", the aforesaid stipulation in itself is quite misleading, therefore, the petitioner mistakenly reproduced the same stipulation as mentioned in Column No. 10 of OMR sheet instead of reproducing the declaration mentioned on the first page of question booklet. It was further contended by learned Senior Counsel that the purpose of the stipulation in Column No.10 of OMR sheet is to preclude imposter from appearing in examination in place of the candidate and apart from the aforesaid, there exists no other purpose of the declaration because the petitioner has already mentioned the above declaration in his application form and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the handwriting used in the Column No.10 of OMR sheet is different from the handwriting made in the declaration made in Para-22 of the application form, therefore, approach of the Railways Authority, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, is hyper-technical and arbitrary. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Railways, Sri Ajay Singh, contended that there is specific provision in the employment notice No. 1 of 2013 that incorrect information will lead to cancellation of the candidature/appointment and direction in OMR sheet regarding reproduction of declaration mentioned on the first page of question booklet in his own handwriting is mandatory in nature and violation of the same will technically result cancellation of candidature of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Railways relied upon the judgement titled as Pitta Naveen Kumar and others vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors., reported in (2006) 10 SCC 261 as well as one of the judgements of the Apex Court titled as Karnataka Public Service Commission and others vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others reported in 1992 (2) SCC 206 . 6. We have considered the rival contention of the parties as well as judgement relied upon by the respondent-Railways. 7. From the Instruction-9 of employment notice No.1 of 2013 dated 27.7.2013, it is clear that if the candidate declared incorrect information in his declaration at Column No. 22 then his candidature/appointment is liable to be cancelled. In the aforesaid notification, there was no direction regarding filling of OMR sheet. On perusal of application form (annexed at page-58 of the writ petition), it shows that the petitioner made declaration in Column No.22 in the aforementioned form and there is no dispute that any concealment or incorrect information was made in the aforesaid declaration of application form. Perusal of the OMR sheet (annexed at Page-60 of the writ petition) shows that the petitioner, instead of reproducing the declaration made at the first page of the booklet in pursuance of stipulation in Column-10 of OMR sheet, reiterated the aforesaid stipulation in his own handwriting and there is no dispute that this reiteration in Column No. 10 of OMR sheet is made by any other person except the petitioner. 8. So far as the judgements relied upon by the Railways is concerned, the same are not applicable in the present case, having different issue therein. As in the judgement of Pitta Naveen Kumar and others (supra), there was an issue of age relaxation. 8. So far as the judgements relied upon by the Railways is concerned, the same are not applicable in the present case, having different issue therein. As in the judgement of Pitta Naveen Kumar and others (supra), there was an issue of age relaxation. Though there was no provision for the same, therefore, for the aforesaid issue the Hon'ble Apex Court made observation that strict adherence to the rules necessary when rules operate only to disadvantage of the candidate concerned not otherwise. In the present case the issue is totally different i.e. reproducing the declaration made at the first page of booklet in Column No.10 of OMR sheet. So far as the judgement of Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (supra) is concerned, the same is relating to violation of instructions issued by the Commission by mentioning roll number by the candidate not only in the space provided there on the cover page of the answer book but also on all the pages inside the answer book, contrary to clear instructions. This judgement is also quite distinguishable because the same is also not applicable in the present facts and circumstances. 9. We have also gone through Para-6 of the procedure regarding recruitment of Group-D (Class-IV employees) for the recruitment by the Railways (annexed by the petitioner at page-49 of writ petition). Para-6 of the aforesaid procedure provides that minimum educational qualification for Class-IV employee is only to read and write in any language, meaning thereby, he should be literate. Therefore, standard of care and precaution on the part of the candidate, applying for Class-IV post, cannot be equated with the candidate applying for other posts for which educated person is required. 10. In the judgements titled as Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) 11642 of 2016 and C.M. No. 45868 of 2016 decided on 23.12.2016, State Bank of India and other vs. Palak Modi and another with State Bank of India and another vs. Minshu Saxena and another, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 and Vivek Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 330/00105/2017) decided on 10.4.2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Court clearly held that for rejecting the candidature of a selected candidate hyper-technical view should not be taken. Similarly in paragraph-7 of the judgement in Hanuman Dutt Shukla and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other reported in (2018) 16 SCC 447 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "It is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel and other learned Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the parties that as per the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government to appoint the eligible candidates to the posts, referred to supra, there is no prohibition to disentitle a candidate from evaluating the answer sheets, who used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR sheet (answer sheet). The said advisory note given by the Selection Board cannot be treated as a rule to declare such candidates who have used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR/answer sheet as ineligible for evaluating their answer sheets. This statement is in conformity with the Recruitment Rules and it would further support the sand taken by the learned Advocate General, representing the respondent State of U.P. in making submission on the basis of written suggestions." 11. Paragraphs 14 & 15 of the judgement titled as Union of India and others vs. Sunil Kumar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4637 are quoted hereinbelow:- "14. We are in agreement with the learned CAT because if we see the Hindi signatures of the respondent, they are exactly the same on the application form as well as on the OMR Sheet. Pertinently, the petitioners have not disputed the thumb impression of the respondent on the application form and the OMR Sheet. It is not a case of impersonation. The only dispute raised by the petitioners, which is the ground for rejection of the candidature of the respondent, is that his signatures on the application form in English do not tally with his signatures on the OMR sheet in English. 15. It is to be noted here that the OMR sheet in the box provided for signatures in English, specifically provides that "NOT in Capital Letters". It is also to be kept in mind that the respondent was appearing for a ''Group D' post of Khallasi and his knowledge of English cannot be presumed to be as proficient as a man of letters. The first impression, which one gets after reading the instruction in box no. It is also to be kept in mind that the respondent was appearing for a ''Group D' post of Khallasi and his knowledge of English cannot be presumed to be as proficient as a man of letters. The first impression, which one gets after reading the instruction in box no. 7 on the OMR sheet at the place where the candidate has to sign, is that the capital letters are not to be used while signing in English. The respondent attempted to follow the said instruction by apparently refraining from using capital letters in his signatures as he had earlier used while signing on the application form." 12. In above mentioned cases, Hon'ble Apex Court held that minor mistake in filling OMR sheet in the examination or Class-IV employee cannot be a ground to reject his candidature, but in the present case, though there was no allegation by the Railways that the petitioner was involved in using any unfair means or any type of interpolation, but merely on the ground that the petitioner reproduced the stipulation of Column No.10 of OMR sheet instead of reproducing the declaration made at first page of booklet in compliance of aforesaid stipulation, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and erroneous on the basis of hyper-technical view. It is also not the case of the petitioner that petitioner is ineligible in any manner for Class-IV post and also this fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has qualified written examination as well as physical test which is necessary requirement for the selection of a Class-IV employee 13. Therefore, we are of the view that the C.A.T. ignored the aforesaid aspect and rejected the original application of the petitioner by adopting the hyper-technical view, regarding non-reproduction of declaration made on the first page of booklet in Column No.10 of OMR sheet. 14. Therefore, the judgement dated 11.8.2017, passed by the C.A.T. in Original Application No. 101 of 2016 is quashed and respondents are directed to conduct the medical examination of the petitioner and verify his documents and issue appointment letter if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. It is also directed that if all posts have been filled up despite pendency of litigation, then the Railways will create supernumerary post for the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 16. It is also directed that if all posts have been filled up despite pendency of litigation, then the Railways will create supernumerary post for the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. 16. The aforesaid exercise is to be done by the Railways within a period of 3 months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.