Dismissed

Mahipal Son of Shri Guljhari Lal v. the Union of India

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CW/13887/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a D.B. Civil Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an original application by the Central Administrative Tribunal against recruitment and reservation. The High Court held that the petitioner conversed for intervention and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahipal Son of Shri Guljhari Lal Vs the Union of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12090-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13887/2021

¶4

Mahipal Son Of Shri Guljhari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Kasni Ki Dhani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union Of India, Through Its Assistant Personnel Officer, (Recruitment And Training), Railway Recruitment Cell, North Western Railway, Durgapura, Railway Station, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Gayatri Rathore, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Ran Singh, Adv.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anand Sharma, Adv. with Mr.Alam Sahni, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

11/03/2024

¶14

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J [ORAL]:-

¶15

This petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing the Original Application (OA).

¶16

The brief facts are that the petitioner in pursuance to recruitment notification issued by the North Western Railway Recruitment Cell dated 16.12.2010 applied in the category of Scheduled Caste for the post in Pay Band-I. The petitioner qualified the written examination test and physical efficiency test. During verification of the documents, it was found that the date of birth mentioned in the application was not matching with the date

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:12090-DB]

¶18

[CW-13887/2021]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

of birth in the certificates. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected as per Clause-8.11 of the notification. The petitioner approached this Court in the year 2014 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4217/2014 and was relegated to remedy before the Tribunal. The OA filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed on 11.11.2021.

¶21

Before proceeding further it would be relevant to reproduce the prayers made before the Tribunal:-

¶22

“(i) That Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondent in relation to advertisement dated 16.12.2010 (Annex-1) issued by the respondent;

¶23

(ii) That the impugned action of the respondent may kindly be declared as null and void and be declared as illegal and further may be quashed and set aside;

¶24

(iii) That by an appropriate order or direction the respondent may be directed to give the appointment to the applicant by giving benefit of reservation to the SC category as per law; (iv) That any other beneficial orders or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly passed in favour of the applicant”

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a typographical mistake in filling the application form. The candidature of the petitioner should not have been rejected on technical ground moreso, when the petitioner had applied under the Scheduled Caste Category. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Vishawanath Dandge Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in [2018(5) SLR 478 (S.C.)] and Manish Kathuriya &

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:12090-DB]

¶27

[CW-13887/2021]

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

Others Etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Others reported in [2018(1) SLR 954 (SC)] .

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that communication dated 24.07.2013 rejecting candidature of the petitioner was served upon the petitioner but it was not challenged. It is argued that the Tribunal considered that there was no vacancy in pursuance to 2010 notification. Counsel further submits that out of 8 Lakh applications received, three lakh applications were rejected as per Clause 8.11 and acceptance of the prayer of the petitioner would have effected the other candidates.

¶31

We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶32

The Tribunal dealt in detail with the contentions raised by the petitioner. It was considered that effected parties have not been impleaded as party. There was no vacancy in pursuance to 2010 notification. Further that no interim protection was granted to the petitioner during pendency of O.A. The communication dated 24.07.2013 was not challenged.

¶33

Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is of no avail for petitioner. Suffice it to say that in case of Rama Vishawanath Dandge (supra), the Apex Court considering that the applicant was a deserted lady having three children and the qualification for the post was 4^th Standard, issued directions to the respondent to accommodate the petitioner. In the case of Manish Kathuriya & Others (supra) the Supreme Court recorded a specific finding that there were vacancies available and

¶34

[2024:RJ-JP:12090-DB]

¶35

[CW-13887/2021]

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

hence the directions were issued to accommodate candidate. The Authorities are distinguishable on facts.

¶38