Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Thr. Chairman Railway ... vs Shubham S/O Late Amardeep Gajbhiye And ... on 26 June, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:6012-DB
1 wp7358.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7358/2024
1. Union of India,
through its Chairman,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 001.
2. Principal Executive Director,
Vigilance Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 001.
3. The General Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.) 495 004.
4. The Principal Chief Personnel
Officer, South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.) 495 001.
5. Senior Deputy General Manager
cum Chief Vigilance Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.) 495 001.
6. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer,
South East Central Railway o/o Chief
Workshop Manager, Motibagh
Workshop, Nagpur 440 004.
7. The Chief Workshop Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Motibagh Workshop, Nagpur 440 004.
2 wp7358.2024
8. Assistant Personnel Officer Motibagh
Workshop, South East Central Railway,
Motibagh, Nagpur 440 004. ... Petitioners
(Original Respondents)
- Versus -
1. Shubham S/o Late Amardeep Gajbhiye,
aged about 27 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
R/o Ward No.1, Chicholi, Near Gram
Panchayat Office, Near Khaparkheda
Thermal Power Station, Khaparkheda,
Distt. Nagpur 441 111. (Original Applicant)
2. Shri Amresh Kumal Shukla,
Assistant Work Study Officer,
South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.) 495 001. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.W. Almelkar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
----------------
CORAM: M.S. JAWALKAR AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 20.6.2025.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 26.6.2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at
3 wp7358.2024
Nagpur dated 21.8.2024 thereby directing the petitioners to
consider the respondent No.1 for suitable appointment on the
basis of his qualification and appoint him on a suitable post on
compassionate ground within a period of two months.
3. It is the case of respondent No.1 that his father Mr.
Amardeep Gajbhiye died on 23.4.2018 who was working as
Technician Grade I in the Group C Category at Motibagh
Workshop, Nagpur. The respondent No.1 holds qualification of
M.Tech. Post Graduate Degree in Electronics and
Telecommunication, therefore, he applied for compassionate
appointment and appeared for examination conducted by the
petitioners for the post of Junior Engineer. The respondent No.1
appeared for twice and he was unsuccessful in said examinations.
The respondent No.1 appeared for third attempt on 28.2.2022
but his result was not declared and it was informed on 10.5.2023
by the petitioners that his candidature was cancelled and he stands
disqualified for appointment on compassionate ground. The
4 wp7358.2024
allegations were made that one Mr. A.K. Shukla had extended
undue favour to the respondent No.1 by adopting unfair means
by swapping question paper and providing tick-marked answers
in question paper for helping him during written examination for
compassionate appointment which was held on 28.2.2022 due to
which the candidature of respondent No.1 has been cancelled by
the administration and disqualified him for compassionate
appointment in Railway. Shri Amaresh Kumar Shukla is facing
disciplinary proceedings for the said act. The respondent No.1
filed Original Application No.690/2023 before the
Administrative Tribunal and Tribunal has passed the judgment
and order thereby directing the petitioners to consider the
respondent No.1 for suitable appointment on compassionate
ground. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the
petitioners have challenged it before this Court.
4. The respondent No.1 has filed his reply and opposed
the claim of the petitioners and submitted that no fault can be
found with the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It is
5 wp7358.2024
submitted that there is no substance in the petition and same
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. It appears from the record that after two unsuccessful
attempts the respondent No.1 was not allowed to appear for
examination. He has filed the application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and as per the Rules direction
was given to allow him to give one more chance to appear for
examination. The respondent No.1 has applied for appointment
on compassionate ground as per the required educational
qualification. The respondent No.1 is M. Tech. in Electronics and
Telecommunication and, therefore, he was eligible for the post of
Junior Engineer in Level-6 in Group "C" Category. It appears
from the record that though he holds qualification of post
graduation in Electronics and Telecommunication he was
required to appear twice in examination for Mechanical subject
6 wp7358.2024
because of which he was not successful in said examination. In
third attempt he had answered 60 questions out of 85 correctly
but the allegations were made that the malpractice in the
examination was done by him and by the superior officers of their
own department. On perusal of record it appears that the
respondent No.1 was in no way responsible for the alleged
malpractice. The allegations were not that the question paper
setter has leaked it to Mr. Shukla even before printing it. There is
no statement by the petitioners whether there was any instruction
to the candidates not to fold the question paper. There is nothing
on record to show that how the Nodal Officer was able to help the
candidate and what was his qualification and whether he was
having knowledge of that subject. Therefore, the allegations
about malpractice on the part of the Nodal Officer are not
sufficient to reject the claim of the respondent No.1 to disqualify
him from the appointment on compassionate ground. There are
no allegations about furnishing any false information or
producing false certificate. The office communication is filed on
7 wp7358.2024
record by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 which is
at pages 189 and 190 of the writ petition. It appears that the
Chief Office Superintendent (Establishment) on 15.11.2022
categorically pointed out that previously during the regime of Shri
A.K. Shukla (respondent No.2) a similar case of appointment on
compassionate ground was dealt with. Ku. Mrunali Dongre was
diploma holder in Computer Engineering and she had insisted for
the written examination of Junior Engineer in the subject of
Information Technology. The case was correctly dealt with by the
said Personnel Officer at Motibagh Workshop as he was aware of
the qualification of that candidate. The candidature and her
name was forwarded to Nagpur Division by the Personnel of
Chief Workshop Manager, Motibagh Workshop, Nagpur as there
was no vacancy of Junior Engineer of Information Technology in
Motibagh Railway Worksop. It is observed that due to
unawareness about the technical subject syllabus of Mechanical
Engineering, the respondent No.1 was asked to write examination
in the said subject instead of Electronics by the Workshop
8 wp7358.2024
Personnel Officer, Motibagh Workshop and Chief Staff and
Welfare Inspector. The last examination was conducted on
28.2.2022 in which the respondent No.1 appeared, was cancelled
as per the letter dated 7.11.2022 issued by the Assistant Vigilance
Officer which is at page 188. As per said communication the
candidate could be called for re-examination as per qualification
and examination was conducted as per the guidelines of Railway
Establishment Rule No.273/2022. It was also observed that if
the candidate agrees to take up the post of Technician-III after
due examination, he could be posted in Motibagh Workshop.
Though it is directed to Assistant Workshop Personnel Officer to
inform the candidate regarding the cancellation of examination
which was conducted on 28.2.2022 and he was required to
appear for re-examination it appears that at the foot of it, it is
mentioned that "on the basis of letter of Vigilance Department
the decision has been taken by the Chief Workshop Manager and
the letter has been received from the headquarters which was
communicated". Even on perusal of this note it appears that the
9 wp7358.2024
Railway Management had already taken a decision in principle to
rectify its mistake of forcing the respondent No.1 to appear in
written examination in the subject of mechanical engineering and
authorities had also made up their mind to allow the respondent
No.1 to appear in written examination in his own subject but he
was not called for written examination and the petitioners did not
act upon the said office communication. The respondent No.1
was not even extended any opportunity of hearing without
disclosing any reason and without issuing show cause notice he
was informed that he is disqualified for said appointment.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, it has to be held that the
learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the application filed by the
respondent No.1, therefore, interference at the hands of this Court
is not warranted. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no
orders as to costs. Rule discharged.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/06/2025 15:04:53
