VINOD NARMAL Vs. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 2 issued a Notice on 17.12.2010 for open market recruitment for posts in Pay Band -I with Grade of Rs. 1800/ - in the Divisions and Workshop units of Northern Railway. Written examination was held on 22.05.2012, which was successfully cleared by the applicant. He was called for physical examination and scrutiny of documents on 31.10.2012, which also he successfully cleared. Thereafter, he was called for medical examination on 05.12.2012. However, when the final result was declared on 08.07.2013, the applicant's name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. He filed a RTI application on 11.12.2013 to find out the reason for his rejection. While he did not get any reply to the same, informally he has come to know that his candidature has been cancelled because he had signed the application in capital letters. He has, therefore, filed this O.A. seeking the following relief: -

(2.) IN their reply, the respondents have stated that the Notice issued for inviting applications for the above recruitment clearly stipulated the general conditions. It was also mentioned in the same that mere selection and empanelment does not confer any right for appointment to the candidates and that admission of the candidates at all stages of recruitment will be purely provisional subject to their satisfying the prescribed conditions. As far as the applicant is concerned, it is true that he cleared the written examination and was called for PET, document verification as well as medical examination. However, during processing of his case, it was noticed that the candidate had signed his application in capital letters despite clear instructions given against this. Accordingly, the competent authority cancelled his candidature under Para -9 of Employment Notice which included signing of application in capital letters amongst other conditions. In his written submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited certain judgments in support of his case. Thus, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifdaullah Khan & Ors., : JT 2011(11) SCC 367 in which the following has been held: -

(3.) WE have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. It is clear from the pleadings that the only reason for rejection of applicant's candidature was that he had signed his application in capital letters. Learned counsel for the applicant, without going into the other grounds mentioned in the OA, placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.02.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Neeraj Kumar & Anr., [WP(C) No. 1004/2012 and CM -2212/2012]. He argued that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in which the Hon'ble High Court has ruled against rejection of application on the ground that signature of the candidate has been made in block capital letters.