Rama Shankar Tiwari vs Union Of India & Anr.

Shri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S C Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned rejection order dated 16.12.2015 by way of which the candidature of the applicant for appointment to a Group D post was rejected by the respondents citing mismatch of thumb impression / handwriting. The applicant alleges that his name was omitted from the list on the aforementioned ground at the very last moment without granting any opportunity of hearing to him and blatantly ignoring the fact that he had appeared and successfully qualified all the prior stages of the recruitment process. By way of the instant OA, applicant seeks quashing of the order dated 16.12.2015 and 31.03.2016 thereby directing the respondents to appoint him on the above post.

We have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the records.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant applied for his candidature for the post of Group D in view of the advertisement made by the respondents in Employment Notice No. 01/2013 dated 27.07.2013 wherein the total number of vacancies was 2609. The applicant was allotted the Roll No. 2220665426 and he appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondent no. 2 across the dates 02.11.2014, 09.11.2014, 16.11.2014, 23.11.2014 and 30.11.2014. Having successfully qualified the written examination, the applicant was called for physical efficiency test. The applicant appeared in PET on 12.03.2015 and qualified the same. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 prepared a merit list of 2609 candidates and called them along with their original documents for document verification and medical examination between 14.09.2015 to 16.10.2015 and 26.10.2015 to 28.10.2015 at Multi Purpose Hall, DSA Ground, Allahabad. The name of the applicant was mentioned in the selected candidates and therefore, the respondent no. 2 called the applicant along with original documents and candidature verification as well as for medical examination, therefore the applicant presented himself on 05.10.2015 at Multi Purpose Hall, DSA Ground, Allahabad along with his original documents for verification and medical examination. Upon verification, respondent no. 2 passed and order dated 05.10.2015, the applicant appeared before Kanpur Loco Hospital, NCR, Kanpur for medical test and medical examination was held in the above said hospital. After medical examination, the Medical Officer sent a medical examination certificate in the office of the respondent no. 2 and stated therein that the petitioner is medically fit for Group D post. A notice dated 15.12.2015 was issued by the respondent no. 2 directing all the selected candidates who have passed in all tests to see their result on the website.

Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that in accordance with the notice dated 15.12.2015, result of only 2141 candidates was declared against the total vacancies 2609. The applicant found that his final selection was rejected only on the ground that there is mismatch in handwriting / thumb impression of the applicant. Learned counsel also argued that when the applicant had appeared in the written examination himself so much so that he was declared fit and eligible to participate in successive stages of the examination consequent to which he appeared in physical efficiency test and medical examination, how he can be rejected on the aforementioned ground.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the above wrongdoing was committed by the respondents without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant and aggrieved by the same, the applicant had preferred the instant original application. As respondents were well aware of their illegal act committed on their part and wary of the reprimanding they were liable to be inflicted by the Tribunal, during the pendency of the OA, respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 22.01.2016 to the applicant calling his reply within 30 days of its issuance. The applicant submitted his reply on 10.02.2016 but ignoring the grounds taken by the applicant in his reply, respondents went ahead and passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 debarring the applicant from all the RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime. Learned counsel argued that the order dated 31.03.2016 has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice and does not adhere to the provision of a reasoned and speaking order.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently denied the claim of the applicant and by way of counter affidavit, he has submitted that vide the impugned result dated 15.12.2015 / 16.12.2015, applicant’s status / candidature was rejected due to handwriting / thumb impression mismatch with him other relevant documents at the time of document verification. This was done in accordance with the terms of and conditions of the Employment Notification. Learned counsel argued that handwriting and thumb impression of the applicant was taken at every stage of the examination and during the verification of documents and other credentials of the candidates, some mismatches / discrepancies were traced and accordingly candidature of all those candidates including the applicant was rejected. Learned counsel further argued that conducting an examination for recruitment on any post in any department is purely a policy / administrative issue and the entire prerogative falls on the said department. Time and again, it has been affirmed by several judicial forums across the country that a court of law possesses very limited or no privilege whatsoever to interfere in the policy matters of the department. Furthermore, applicant is not the sole candidate whose employment has been rejected but there are many others falling in the same bracket. Applicant’s case was rejected because it came forth that his handwriting / thumb impression mismatched in the written examination which easily implies that someone else appeared on behalf of him during the written examination. The terms and conditions of the employment notice / advertisement were absolutely clear in this regard that the recruitment authority holds the right for final selection of a candidate and clearing one, all or any number of stages of a recruitment exam does not confer any right upon the candidate to claim for final appointment. The applicant applied for his candidature accepting all such conditions as were prescribed in the notification and thus, filing this original application alleging felony committed on the part of respondents does not make sense.

Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that it was wrong to say that no show cause notice was ever issued to the applicant. A show cause notice was issued on 22.01.2016 asking clarification from the application. Upon receipt of an unsatisfactory reply, an order dated 31.03.2016 was passed debarring the applicant from all the RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime. Thus, it was prayed that the instant case of the applicant holds no merit and the original application is liable to be dismissed accordingly. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon judgments passed by the Apex Court’s viz. Technical Education Vs. Surindra Kumar Dhawan, 2009 (11) SCC 726; Film Festivals Vs. Gaurava Ashwini Jain, 2001 (4) SCC 757; SS Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 797; Secretary, All India Pre-Medical / Pre Dental Examination, CBSE and others Vs. Khushboo Srivastava and others 2011 (4) ESC (SC) 637 and Jainendra Singh Vs. State of UP 2012 (8) SCC 748.

We have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the documents on record and judgments relied upon by the counsels.

As the facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is evident that the applicant had participated in all the stages of the examination and thumb impression / handwriting was obtained in each and every stage. However, upon final verification, a mismatch of handwriting / thumb impression was discovered. The main contention of the respondents is that some other person had appeared in place of the applicant in the written examination. When this issue emerged, the candidature of the applicant was repudiated. Although applicant’s candidature was rejected without offering any opportunity of hearing and no show cause notice was issued either but during the pendency of this OA, the respondents have issued a show cause notice to the applicant calling the explanation of the applicant and only upon the receipt of unsatisfactory reply, order dated 31.03.2016 was passed debarring the applicant from all the RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime. The applicant has challenged two orders viz. order dated 15.12.2015 / 16.12.2015 by way of which his candidature was rejected and order dated 31.03.2016 by way of which he has been debarred from appearing in all the RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime. Respondents’ counsel has averred that rejecting the candidature of the applicant falls in the purview of policy matter in which any court of law can exercise a very limited or no interference whatsoever. Furthermore, respondents have placed reliance upon certain case laws as have been quoted in previous paragraphs. The synopsis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in all those cases is that the courts cannot substitute themselves in place of statutory technical bodies and take decision on academic matters involving standard and quality of technical education and further, courts also cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, reasonability and appropriateness of policy which is to be solely exercised by the department. Referring to those case laws, respondents’ counsel has also argued that no candidate can claim any legal right to be appointed especially when the recruitment is yet in its concluding stages and as and when any discrepancy with regard to credentials / bona fides of any of the candidates appears, it is on the part of the respondents to reject the candidature of that candidate for which it need not submit an exhaustive explanation.

Undoubtedly, issues like recruitment fall within the ambit of policy matters. The Court is not a supervisory body to expound the recruitment authorities about the matter in which an appointment needs to be conducted. However, it is the utmost responsibility of the department to ensure that any recruitment process is carried out in accordance with the prescribed rules and provisions as enshrined in the statute books or department manuals. Further, if any discrepancy creeps in with regard to any of the candidate(s), the same has to be adequately communicated to the said candidate appropriately. As far as the instant case of the applicant is concerned, he appeared and qualified in all the stages of the examination so much so that he was waiting for his name to be reflected in the final result issued on 15.12.2015. Respondents have themselves admitted that applicant’s handwriting / thumb impression was obtained prior to each stage of the examination. However, his candidature was rejected only upon reaching the culminating stage of the recruitment process. No show cause or intimation whatsoever was issued to the applicant before rejecting his candidature and it was only during the pendency of this OA when respondents issued a show cause notice asking the applicant’s clarification. Respondents went a step ahead and passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 thereby debarring the applicant from appearing in RRCs/RRBs examination for appointment in railway for lifetime thus inflicting severe hardship to the applicant’s career. It is an established fact that applicant applied for his candidature agreeing to the entire terms and conditions as were enshrined in the employment notice. In any recruitment process, the recruiting authority / department exercises absolute onus to ensure that the recruitment is made in accordance with the prescribed rules and provisions. Any misrepresentation, misconduct or concealment reported on the part of the candidate is liable to be dealt with strictly. The candidature of the applicant was rejected only because mismatch of handwriting / thumb impression was reported after due verification. Furthermore, it cannot be held that any sort of discriminatory or prejudicial treatment was inflicted upon the applicant as the candidature of about 339 candidates was reported on the ground of impersonation. Needless to say, in such a colossal recruitment process as is the case herein, it is neither feasible nor possible for the recruiting authority to demonstrate the rejection of each and every candidature. The applicant was not yet selected as no appointment orders were issued and in such a circumstance, it was reasonable on the part of the respondents to reject his candidature without assigning any exhaustive reason. Notwithstanding the same, respondents issued a show cause notice calling explanation from the applicant. Since the applicant was never issued any appointment order and his candidature was rejected when the recruitment was still in its culminating stages, we are of the considered view that the present case requires no intervention of the Tribunal. However, it will certainly be an indelible blot upon the applicant’s career if the order dated 31.03.2016 is made to sustain. Since we have already held that the applicant was not required to be given any exhaustive explanation for the rejection of his candidature since his candidature was rejected along with more than 300 candidates during the course of recruitment process and he was not yet given the appointment, similarly we also hold that it would inflict severe hardship upon the applicant if he is made to suffer on account of issuance of order dated 31.03.2016 in the garb of which the applicant has been debarred from appearing in future exams of railways just because he approached before this Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance.

In view of the above deliberations, the instant original application is allowed partly to the extent that order dated 15.12.2015 / 16.12.2015 stands intact and order dated 31.03.2016 stands quashed.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.