Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Kumar Vishwakarma vs Union Of India And Another on 13 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139151-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2004 of 2025
Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Vishwakarma
Respondent :- Union of India and another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhimanyu Dube, Ashish Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Amrish Sahai
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri Abhimanyu Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel the respondents and perused the material available on record.
THE CHALLENGE
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2024, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has dismissed the petitioner's Original Application No. 330/152 of 2019 (Gaurav Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. Union of India and another).
3. The said Original Application was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 21.02.2018 whereby the respondent no. 2 had not found any merit in the candidature of the petitioner under Reserved OBC category in relation to the selection in question and accordingly disposed of his representation dated 16.11.2017.
BRIEF FACTS
4. Pursuant to a notification dated 26.12.2015 for recruitment on various posts of NTPC (Graduate) in Railways, the petitioner applied by filling up an online application form. He was issued an admit card asking him to appear in the Computer Based Test (CBT) to be held on 12.04.2016. The petitioner cleared the first stage examination, i.e., the said test, whereafter he was called upon to appear in second stage CBT to be held on 17.01.2017. The petitioner cleared the said test also. Thereafter, by another call letter, the petitioner was asked to appear for Computer Based Aptitude Test to be held on 30.06.2017, wherein also he appeared and qualified the same. The petitioner was, then, called upon for documents verification, which exercise was conducted on 13.09.2017. The petitioner, at that stage, claims to have submitted certain documents and his grievance is that when the final result was published, his particulars did not find mention therein and, consequently, he finally stood disqualified.
5. The petitioner represented his grievance before the respondents and when the same was not redressed to, he filed Original Application No. 31 of 2018, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 11.01.2018 issuing direction for consideration of his representation. Pursuant to the same, the respondent no. 2, by order dated 21.02.2018, rejected the petitioner's representation having found no merit in his candidature as a reserved category OBC candidate.
6. Challenging the order dated 21.02.2018, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 330/152 of 2019, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 25.10.2024 against which the present writ petition has been filed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC) Non-Creamy Layer category, however, when he filled up the online application form and mentioned his status at Sl. No. 14 as such, on account of indicating 'Yes' as against Sl. No. 17 in the application form, which indicated 'Do you belong to Economically Backward Class', the computer operating system erroneously changed his category, at Sl. No. 14 of the form, as 'OBC- Creamy Layer' in place of 'OBC- Non-Creamy Layer'.
8. Submission has been made that before the admit card in relation to first stage of Computer Based Test was issued to the petitioner, he submitted his grievance through online process on 11.03.2016 requesting change of status from 'OBC-Creamy Layer' to 'OBC Non-Creamy Layer' but no heed was paid to the same, although the second grievance in relation to the test centre was redressed to on 22.03.2016. It is further urged that since at the stage of documents verification, the petitioner produced documents and certificates disclosing his status as OBC and also those indicating his class as 'Economically Backward Class' (EBC), the respondents were bound to consider the merit points obtained by the petitioner corresponding to OBC-Non-Creamy Layer and EBC category but they erroneously considered the petitioner as belonging to OBC- Creamy Layer category, i.e. an Unreserved Category candidate and, consequently, illegally dislodged his candidature by the order impugned before the Tribunal.
COUNTER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the entire process of selection, which had begun in 2016, has already been finalized 8-9 years ago, final results for the posts were declared, list of selected candidates was sent to the Railways for further action and selected candidates have already joined their respective posts and, therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted. It is also contended that Clause 5(A)13 of the instructions contained in the Centralized Employment Notice No. 3 of 2015 initiating process of selection, clearly provided a procedure for seeking modification but, since the petitioner did not avail the remedy of seeking correction within time prescribed under the instructions, his category was rightly treated as 'OBC Creamy Layer' with which he had participated at all stages of selection process and after he could not finally qualify the process, he cannot turn around by saying that his candidature should have been considered under reserved category, i.e. 'OBC Non-Creamy Layer/ EBC'.
SUBMISSIONS IN REJOINDER
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no time constraint was there for seeking correction in the application form and once the petitioner had submitted his grievance on 11.03.2016, the respondents were bound to consider the same. It is further submitted that Clause 5(A)13 of the instructions does not relate to correction/modification in change of category, rather the same relates to only change of test centre, i.e. correction of a secondary nature. The submission, therefore, is that once there was no provision for change of particulars of primary nature such as class/category etc., neither the department nor the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that he did not seek modification on or before 25.01.2016.
11. Alternate submission has been made that 25.01.2016 was never notified as last date seeking modification/correction and, therefore, once an online grievance was submitted on 11.03.2016 requesting change of category and also change of test centre and once the second grievance was redressed to, there was no justifiable reason not to consider the first request regarding change of category from 'OBC-Creamy Layer' to 'OBC-Non Creamy Layer'.
12. It is further urged that since some relaxation in examination fees was granted by the respondents, they treated the petitioner and the petitioner also remained under bonafide impression about his candidature as a reserved category OBC candidate belonging to EBC, and, therefore, the respondents were bound to treat the petitioner as a reserved category candidate. In support of submissions, reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Nandan Mehta Vs. Santosh Kumar and others: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP © No. 7418 of 2022, decided on 29.04.2025 and submission has been made that unintentional error committed by the petitioner should not have been treated as fatal to his claim, particularly when certificates relating to correct category were produced by him at document verification stage.
DISCUSSION
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is no dispute regarding filling up of application form through online process by the petitioner himself, wherein he mentioned his category as OBC- Creamy Layer, at Sl. No. 14 of the form. Though, the petitioner submitted his grievance on 11.03.2016 through online mode regarding change of category terming the aforesaid entry to be a computer operator's fault, the fact remains that admit cards, stage by stage, were issued to the petitioner in relation to the tests which were to be conducted and actually conducted on 12.04.2016, 17.01.2017 and 30.06.2017. In all the admit cards, the petitioner's category was mentioned as OBC-Creamy Layer. The petitioner accepted his status/category as such and participated in the selection process. He cleared three stages, i.e. Computer Based Test (first stage), Computer Based Test (second stage) and Computer Based Aptitude Test. The said process consumed a period of 15 months after the petitioner had submitted his grievance but he neither raised any dispute after submitting the grievance nor did he ever assail before the Tribunal, inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his request for change of category. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner moved forward and went ahead, step by step, by acquiescing to his category mentioned by him at Sl. No. 14 of the application form, i.e. OBC-Creamy Layer. Therefore, if the petitioner was disqualified at the final stage in September 2017, i.e., the fourth stage of selection, the clock cannot be set back so as to examine his candidature based upon merit points relating to OBC- Non-Creamy Layer category.
14. We may also refer to Clause 5(A)13 of the instructions contained in the Centralized Employment Notice No. 3 of 2015, so to examine petitioner's contention based thereupon. The same reads as under :-
"13. Even after final submission, if a candidate wishes to make any modifications, he/she can do so but for any such modification additional fee of ₹ 100/- shall be payable. This fee for modification shall be applicable even to candidates belonging to exempted categories (i.e. SC/ST/PWD/Ex- SM/Woman/Minority/Transgender/Economically backward class candidates)."
15. The aforequoted Clause 5(A)13 does not, at all specify, as to what modifications can be made and what not. Infact the Clause is clear and unambiguous and covers all types of modifications which a candidate could request even after final submission of form and by depositing additional fees of Rs. 100/-. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission that Clause 5(A)13 would apply only in relation to change of test centre or any other correction of a purported secondary nature and not for change in category. The arguments on that line appear to be thoroughly misplaced and contrary to the simple language used in Clause 5(A)13. Even otherwise, if we accept the submission made that correction could not be sought as regards category, the entire case of the petitioner would fall, that is to say that the respondents would not be obliged to change category from OBC-Creamy Layer to OBC Non-Creamy Layer. Therefore, we completely discard the submissions made in that regard.
16. In so far as relaxation of examination fees allegedly granted by the respondents is concerned, the same, if at all it was done, would not ipso facto mean or infer that the respondents treated the petitioner as a candidate belonging to a reserved category. Drawing inference based upon some act of the respondents which is contrary to the record position not only as regards stipulations indicated in the application form, admit cards issued from time to time as well as assessment and disclosure of merit points at various stages of selection qua the category which the petitioner had himself filled in and proceeded with, would be an exercise based upon presumptions only.
17. As regards judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Nandan Mehta (supra), the facts of the said case being distinguishable, the petitioner would not get any benefit out of the same. In the said case, the candidate was, after completion of selection process, appointed on the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher. His appointment was challenged by another candidate after two years on the ground of manipulation in TET Examination Certificate qua depiction of caste. A plea was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a caste certificate dated 03.02.2001 depicted the correct caste but, due to inadvertent mistake, candidate's category was mentioned differently. The matter had arisen from a situation where category OBC was bifurcated into BC and MBC and there was some discrepancy in the certificates issued from time to time. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that since the recruiting agency had not cancelled the appointment on the allegation of submitting incorrect information, the case was not of submission of false certificate of qualifying examination or a false caste certificate.
18. The factual position in the present case is entirely different where the selection process began pursuant to the Advertisement issued in the year 2015 and tests from stage one to last were held from April, 2016 to September, 2017, wherein the petitioner had participated with the category OBC-Creamy Layer. It is at the verge of conclusion of selection process and at its final stage when the petitioner got issued OBC certificates in August-September, 2017 and based upon ration card and income certificate etc, attempt was made to convince the respondents regarding his belonging to economically backward class.
19. From the chain of events, it stands established that throughout the process of selection, the petitioner's category was not got changed from OBC-Creamy Layer to OBC-Non-Creamy Layer and even if we assume for a while that there was some technical fault while submitting the form, the petitioner was not precluded at each stage from assailing the inaction on the part of the respondents in not changing the category despite submission of online grievance on 11.03.2016. It is apparent that the petitioner continued to participate in the entire selection process with same category, i.e. OBC-Creamy Layer and only when he failed to get selected under the said category raised the issue. Therefore, we are not inclined to find any fault in the respondents' action where they considered the candidature of the petitioner in unreserved category.
20. Another fatal lapse on part of the petitioner in filing the O.A. is non-impleadment of the last selected candidate in the Non-Creamy Layer category, which issue, though was not raised, is relevant if relief prayed for was to be granted.
21. The Tribunal, while dismissing the O.A., has considered all the aforesaid aspects by recording correct findings based on record and has rightly observed that each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly and with his eyes wide open. The Tribunal has, by relying upon judicial precedents, observed that even if a candidate was negligent in filling up his form and did not even make necessary corrections or verifications, it is not open for him to claim before the Court that he realized his mistake only when he failed to qualify in the selection process.
CONCLUSION
22. In view of above discussion, we do not find any error in the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's candidature nor do we find the order of the Tribunal suffering from any perversity.
23. Consequently, the writ petition has no substance and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2025
AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
