Dismissed

Kamaldeep Meena S/O Shri Babu Lal Meena v. Rajasthan Railway Recruitment Board

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2019CW/5861/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought correction of caste category error in railway recruitment form treating himself as Scheduled Tribe. High Court held that CEN instructions mandated approach to Central Administrative Tribunal for recruitment disputes. Alternative statutory remedy being available, writ petition was found not maintainable and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the appropriate Central Administrative Tribunal for grievance.

Kamaldeep Meena S/O Shri Babu Lal Meena Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5861/2019

¶3

Kamaldeep Meena S/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, R/o Dhani Kaythawali, Tan- Amai, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Railway Recruitment Board, Through Its Chairman, 2010, Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer, Rajasthan 305028

¶7

Railway Recruitment Cell NWR, Jaipur Through Its Chairman, 1^st Floor, Railway Staff Rest House Power House Road, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gopal Sandhu, Adv. and Mr.Deepesh Oswal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.C. Sharma, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/08/2019

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to seek a direction to allow him to correct an error committed while filling up the application form for Group-D post in the Railways, as per the Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No.02/2018. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to treat his caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe instead of Scheduled Caste and further to grant him appointment in the selection process in Group-D post in Railways in pursuance of advertisement dt.10.02.2018.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and while filling up

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-5861/2019]

¶17

the application form, as per the Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No.02/2018, an inadvertent error was committed by him, as while applying, he had wrongly mentioned Scheduled Caste category.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had also annexed certificate showing him to be Scheduled Tribe and as such his candidature was required to be considered as Scheduled Tribe candidate.

¶19

Mr.P.C.Sharma, counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection about maintainability of writ petition and submitted that the dispute with regard to appointment on GroupD post in the Railways, cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that even in the Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No.02/2018, instruction No.19.4 had also made it clear to all the candidates that legal issues arising out of CEN will fall within the legal jurisdiction of respective Central Administrative Tribunals under which the Railway Recruitment Board concerned is located.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had applied in the Ajmer Division and as such the petitioner was required to seek appropriate remedy for challenging any action of the respondents, if at all, the petitioner had any grievance.

¶21

To meet the objection of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court dated 31.01.2006 in Appeal (Civil) No. 881/2006 (L.K. Verma Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr.) and in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 2120 .

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-5861/2019]

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has rightly approached this Court as his fundamental right has been violated. Learned counsel submitted that for violation of fundamental right, natural justice or if any action of the State is ultra-vires to the provisions of Constitution, writ is a right remedy.

¶25

Learned counsel also submitted that the change of category in application form is permissible as the error which is committed by the candidate, is not intentional and human error can always be corrected and condoned by the authorities, if the same does not affect right of the third party. Learned counsel has placed reliance on order dated 01.11.2017 of the Division Bench passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1700/2017 (Kavita Choudhary Vs. The Registrar (Examination) & Anr.) .

¶26

I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

This Court finds that issue in the present writ petition is with regard to recruitment on Group-D posts in Railways and the Central Administrative Tribunal has been created for the purpose of deciding the disputes including recruitment disputes. The Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No.02/2018 had also made it clear that if there is any dispute or legal issues with respect to the recruitment, the candidate was required to approach the respective Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court finds that once statutory remedy is available to a person/petitioner, writ jurisdiction is not the correct jurisdiction to be exercised.

¶28

This Court has gone through the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia (supra) and finds that the

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CW-5861/2019]

¶31

Apex Court has laid down broad principle that if there is an arbitration clause and the person has availed remedy of writ jurisdiction, the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction.

¶32

This Court has also gone through the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of L.K. Verma (supra) and finds that the broad principle of alternative remedy has been discussed by the Apex Court by referring to the judgment of (Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.) reported in (1998) 1 SCC 1.

¶33

This Court finds that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, are of no assistance to the petitioner.

¶34

The present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is free to avail alternative statutory remedy provided to him under the law.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶36

Solanki DS, PS/18

Kamaldeep Meena S/O Shri Babu Lal Meena v. Rajasthan Railway Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaldeep Meena S/O Shri Babu Lal Meena v. Rajasthan Railway Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Jatav D/O Bieermdev Jatav, W/O Pushpendra Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramakant Nareda Vs State Education Department Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Kanwar Bhati D/O Sh. Vijai Singh Bhati W/O Sh. Manveer Singh Chundawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Bharose Lal Sharma S/O Shri Lal Chand Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Renu D/O Shri Suresh Kumar, W/O Rajpal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Singh S/O Ratan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan