AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
“8.1To quash and set aside the act/order/communication of the respondent of rejecting the selection of applicant (as uploaded on respondent website in the month of September 2016), order dated 25.11./8.12.2026 whereby the representation of applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that applicant be given offer of appointment to the post in pay band-I (Rs.5200-20200) +GP-Rs.1800/- initiated by Northern Railway in pursuance of Employment notice No.220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2012 (as per merit obtained by applicant) forthwith with all consequential benefit including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances. Or/and
Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”
Highlighting the material facts of the case, in brief, the applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature pursuant to Employment Notice No. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2012 issued by the Northern Railway. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 25.11.2016/08.12.2016, whereby his representation came to be rejected. The impugned communication reads as under:-
“Northern Railway Railway Recruitment Room
Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi--110 024 No.752-E/RRC/SSB Dated 25.11/8.12.2016 Sh. Dandeep s/o Sh. Bhim Singh, V&PO-Ghoomar, Tehsil-Gannaur, District-Sonepat, Haryana, PIN-131101. Bihar Sub:- Regarding recruitment. Ref:- Your representation dated 10.2016 In reference to above mentioned subject, it is being informed you that the candidates who have been found medical fit under B-2/C-I/C-II category could not given appointment due to non-availability of post. They have not kept in provisionally empanelled. The same information is being uploaded on railway recruitment sit. (R.K. Malhotra) Head, Railway Recruitment Room”
During the course of hearing, this Tribunal, having regard to the rival submissions, directed the parties to place on record affidavits indicating the relevant vacancy position as well as the status of the applicant vis-à-vis the category in which he could have been considered for appointment.
Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed an affidavit dated 05.08.2026. The relevant extracts thereof, contained in paragraphs 3 and 4, read as under:-
“3.I further state that the applicant, Sh. Sandeep, secured 77.33 marks under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and was found medically fit in the B-2 and below medical
categories. However, despite being eligible for consideration in the said medical categories, the applicant could not be selected solely because his merit position was below the prescribed cut-off in every medical category for which he was eligible. The comparative merit position is reproduced below:
| Medical Category | Marks of Last Selected Candidate | Applicant’s Marks |
| B-2 | 77.67 | 77.33 |
| C-1 | 78.59 | 77.33 |
| C-2 | 84.33 | 77.33 |
4.I state that the aforesaid figures unequivocally establish that the applicant secured marks lower than the last selected candidate in each of the medical categories for which he was eligible. Consequently, the applicant was not selected solely due to his lower merit position. No Candidate having lower merit than the applicant has been appointed in the relevant medical categories. Therefore, the allegation of arbitrariness, discrimination, or unfair treatment on the part of the respondents is wholly unfounded and deserves to be Central Administrative Tribunalrejected.”
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and the material placed on record.
In view of the categorical deposition made by the respondents in the affidavit regarding the comparative merit position of the applicant, whereby it has been stated that the applicant had secured marks lower than those of the last selected candidate in each of the relevant medical categories, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned decision.
From the affidavit filed by the respondents, particularly the comparative merit position furnished therein, it is evident that the applicant had secured 77.33 marks under the Scheduled Caste category, whereas the marks secured by the last selected candidate were 77.67 in B-2 medical category, 78.59 in C-1 medical category and 84.33 in C-2 medical category. Thus, the applicant's marks were below the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each of the medical categories for which he was eligible.
The respondents have further categorically stated that the applicant could not be selected on account of his lower merit position and that no candidate having marks lower than those secured by the applicant was appointed against the relevant medical categories. The said assertion, made on affidavit, has not been controverted by the applicant by placing any material on record to demonstrate that a candidate lower in merit than the applicant was selected or appointed.
In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents, supported by the comparative merit position placed on record, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned decision. The applicant, admittedly, did not fall within the merit position required for selection in any of the medical categories for which he was eligible. Mere medical fitness, by itself, does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment upon a candidate who does not fall within the prescribed zone of merit.
10 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed relianceCentral Administrative Tribunal upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.117/2017, titled Sushil vs. Ministry of Railways. However, in view of the specific factual position emerging from the affidavit filed by the respondents in the present case, the aforesaid decision does not advance the case of the applicant.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in the Original Application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.