RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD Vs. PRAVIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 28.3.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad ("the Tribunal" for short) in Original Application No.618 of 2016 whereby learned Tribunal was pleased to direct the petitioner to verify the documents on 7.4.2017 and to take all further pre-appointment formalities within two months from 7.4.2017 and if the respondent herein is found fit in all other respects, the petitioner is directed to recommend his candidature for appointment.

(2.) The broad facts of the present case are that the pursuant to the Centralized Employment Notice No.2/2015, the respondent applied for the post of Non Technical Popular Categories (NTPC) (under graduate) and accordingly, the respondent was allowed to participate in the written examination held on 20.11.2015 conducted by the petitioner. In the said examination, the respondent was declared provisionally eligible for verification of documents and genuineness of his candidature and accordingly, the respondent was directed to appear before the petitioner for document verification / typing test to be held from 9.3.2016 to 12.3.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that all the candidates whose names find place in the notification dated 18.2.2016 were issued call letters directing them to appear before the Railway Recruitment Board for document verification between 9.3.2016 and 12.3.2016. According to the respondent, he was suffering from Typhoid during the period between 8.3.2016 and 22.3.2016 and therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the petitioner for document verification within stipulated time period i.e. from 9.3.2016 to 12.3.2016. Thereafter, the respondent met the officials of the Railway Recruitment Board personally on 28.3.2016 and explained the circumstances by which he did not appear before the petitioner for document verification on the stipulated time period and ultimately, he requested the petitioner to consider his candidature for the post in question by verifying his documents. According to the respondent, there was no response from the petitioner herein. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said inaction of the petitioner herein, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal by way of filing the Original Application.

(3.) It was the case of the respondent herein before the learned Tribunal in the Original Application that the petitioner has not considered his candidature for appointment to the post of Non Technical Popular Category by taking up the exercise of verification of the original documents and the said inaction of the petitioner herein is arbitrary and illegal and accordingly, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the notice in the Original Application, the petitioner filed the detailed reply. Ultimately, learned Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, passed the impugned order, as stated above.