SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 3-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chadigarh (in short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Review Application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 for reviewing the order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) is allowed and the order Annexure P-4 was recalled as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review application was allowed. Further a writ of Mandamus has been sought directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to select/appoint the petitioner for the posts as advertised vide advertisement dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) Put pithily, vide Employment Notification No. 220-E/Open Mkt./RRC/2012 dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure P-1), respondents No. 1 and 2 invited applications under Open Market Recruitment from bona fide citizens of India and such other candidates declared eligible by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to fill up a total of 7368 posts in Pay Band-1 Rs. 5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- for the Divisions/workshops/units. The candidates were required to put their lefthand thumb impression at the designated box in the application form and in the absence thereof, the application was to be rejected summarily. It was also mentioned therein that the recruitment procedure would consist of written examination followed by Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and further, the final recruitment panel will be strictly based on merit position obtained in written examination. The petitioner being eligible as per the requirements, applied for the said post in one application form by fulfilling all the required formalities. Hence, after considering the application of the petitioner and finding him eligible, he was called for written examination for 17.11.2013, in which he appeared. After qualifying the written examination, the petitioner was shortlisted for PET by respondents No. 1 and 2 for 24.03.2014 in which he was found fit. Thereafter, vide letter dated 21.04.2014, the petitioner being found eligible in written examination and PET, was called for the verification of documents as well as for Medical Examination at the DRM Office, Northern Railway, Ferozepur (Punjab) for 26.05.2014. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the document verification would be of those candidates who would be found fit by the Screening Committee.

(3.) Upon verification of documents on 26.05.2014, the official respondents got conducted medical examination of the petitioner on 28.05.2014 at Railway Hospital, Ludhiana. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 and 2 declared the result on their website in which the petitioner found his name in the list of candidates, who were recommended by the committee to the technical expert for further examination. Consequently, the petitioner contacted the office of respondent No. 2 to verify his status in respect of the result. He was told to produce the Xerox copies of his Academic documents on 11.07.2014. Accordingly, on 11.07.2014, the petitioner again submitted his documents along with an application to respondent No. 2. Thereafter, in December, 2014, the petitioner was astonished and shocked, when he found from the website of respondents No. 1 and 2 that his candidature has been rejected on a flimsy ground that the Forensic Document Expert has reported mismatch in handwriting/signatures on his application form, Optical Marks Recognition (OMR) and document verification papers. Being aggrieved, after obtaining information (Annexure P-3) under the Right to Information Act (RTI), the petitioner filed Original Application No. 574 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the Original Application of the petitioner vide order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) and set aside the order Annexure P-2 vide which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and also gave liberty to the official respondents to take fresh appropriate action in accordance with law regarding candidature of the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 and 2 instead of considering the claim of the petitioner filed Review Application No. 60 of 2016 (Annexure P-5) with an application for condonation of delay of 72 days before the Tribunal, mainly relying on the subsequent order dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the review application of respondents No. 1 and 2 and recalled the order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) by condoning the delay vide order dated 12.09.2016 (Anexure P-7).