Rajvir Singh vs Chairman, Railway Recruitment ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3998 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.7380/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 17.08.2011

Rajvir Singh                                             .... Petitioner

                     Through Sh.A.P.Sahay, Advocate

                                Versus

Chairman,                                              .... Respondent
Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal

                     Through Sh. R.L.Dhawan, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers               YES
        may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?           NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be                   NO
        reported in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

* CM Nos.5252-53/2011

Considering the facts and circumstances, the applications are

allowed. The delay in filing the application for restoration is

condoned and the writ petition is restored to its original number.

W.P.(C) No.7380/09

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st September,

2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2073/2007 and M.A.No.2061/2007 titled

as „Sh. Rajbir Singh v. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board‟

dismissing the original application of the petitioner and declining the

prayer of the petitioner to quash the Order No.RRB/BPL/RTI/286

dated 12th April, 2007. The Tribunal declined the plea of the

petitioner that his candidature for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in

the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- was wrongly denied and that the

petitioner was entitled to 5 years of age relaxation as per the

prescribed conditions.

2. Brief facts to comprehend the grievance of the petitioner are

that he is a graduate from Agra University and that he has done his

graduation in ITI Electronics. In response to a notification issued and

published by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal in the

Employment News Notice No.1/2006 (Centralized) dated 24th

February, 2006, the respondent had applied for the post of Assistant

Loco Pilot in the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- against 202 vacancies.

3. The general instructions for filling up the vacancies for the

post provided certain specific eligibility conditions such as SSE plus

Act Apprenticeship from ITI in specific trades like Fitter, Electrician,

Electronic Mechanic, Mechanic, etc. According to the general

instructions, the age had to be reckoned as on 1st July, 2006 and the

prescribed age limit was 30 years. The notification for filling up the

vacancies also contemplated age relaxation in Para. 2.1.3.

4. In Para 2.1.3 of the said notification, age relaxation was

contemplated for the staff of quasi administrative offices of Railway

organization who had put in a minimum of 3 years of service for

which maximum age relaxation of 5 years could be granted. Para

2.1.3 of the general conditions is as under:-

"2.1.3 In case of staff of quasi administrative offices of Railway organization such as Railway Canteen, Railway Institutes and Railway Co-operative Societies who have put in 3 years‟ service, relaxation in age will be given to the extent of service rendered by them, subject to a maximum of 5 years."

5. Besides the age relaxation to the staff of quasi administrative

offices of Railway organization, other categories of age relaxation

were also contemplated. In para 2.1.9 of the said notification, age

relaxation was also contemplated in case of Course Completed Act

Apprentices applying for categories where ITI/Act App. which is an

essential qualification to the extent of apprentice training undergone

under the Apprentice Act, 1961 subject to para 2.1.2 and 2.1.6."

Para 2.1.9 regarding age relaxation contemplated in the said

notification is as under:-

"2.1.9 Upper age limit in case of Course Completed Act Apprentices applying for categories where ITI/Act App. is an essential qualification, shall be relaxed to the extent

of Apprentice training undergone under Apprentice Act, 1961 subject to para 2.1.2 and 2.1.6."

6. The plea of the petitioner was that his date of birth is 15th May,

1972 and as on 1st July, 2006 he was 34 years 1 month and 17 days

and in case age relaxation of 4 years 1 month and 17 days was

allowed then he would have become eligible for the said post.

7. In order to seek age relaxation, the petitioner contended that

after doing graduation he had done ITI Electronics for 2 years from

Maharaja Suraj Mal Institute, Janakpuri, New Delhi and thereafter

an Act Apprenticeship for one year. He had also worked as a

salesman in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟

Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi from

01.05.1995 to 31.12.2001 for about 5 years. Therefore, when he had

applied pursuant to the said notification for the post of Assistant

Loco Pilot, along with his application he had submitted the requisite

certificates including a certificate dated 14th January, 2003 issued by

the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer

Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi.

8. The petitioner contended that he was issued a roll number,

being 31110544, and he was directed to appear in the examination

on 16th July, 2006. The result of the examination was published in

the Employment News dated 21-27th October, 2006. However, the

roll number of the petitioner was not included in the list of qualified

candidates. Since the petitioner was sure about his success in the

written examination, he had sent a representation dated 2nd

November, 2006 seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheets and also

submitted a request under the Right to Information Act on 7th

November, 2006 for getting his answer sheets rechecked and to show

the same to the petitioner for his satisfaction.

9. Pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner for re-

evaluation and rechecking of his answer sheets, by communication

dated 22nd November, 2006 he was informed that the petitioner being

over age was not eligible and hence his candidature had not be taken

into consideration. The petitioner, thereafter, sent various

communications and made another application under the Right to

Information Act, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by

letter dated 12th April, 2007. In the said communication, it was

disclosed that the case of the petitioner was not considered because

he was over age and he was an ineligible candidate. It was also

stated that appearance in the entrance examination and the result

thereof was provisional. It was pointed out that in his application for

the said post, the petitioner had sought age relaxation under para

2.1.9 and since the petitioner had completed Act Apprentice for a

period of 1 year, therefore, he could be considered for age relaxation

of 1 year only and not for 4 years 1 month and 17 days. It was

categorically communicated to the petitioner that he had not stated

in the application about working with Northern Railway Traffic

Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd.

Kishanganj, Delhi, nor had he submitted any enclosure in support

thereof. Consequently, age relaxation which had not been sought in

the application and in respect of which no certificate was given,

could not be given to the petitioner. It was also emphasized that any

information which had not been given in the original RRB application

form and brought subsequently could not be considered.

10. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by

communication dated 12th April, 2007, he filed original application,

being OA No.2073 of 2007, titled as „Sh.Rajvir Singh v. Chairman

Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal‟, contending, inter-alia, that the

plea taken by the respondent that he had not submitted the working

certificate in Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟

Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. Kishanganj, Delhi and that the

respondent had not given the age relaxation on the basis of the

certificate dated 14th January, 2003 of Northern Railway Traffic

Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd.

Kishanganj, Delhi is factually incorrect.

11. The pleas and contentions of the petitioner were contested by

the respondent contending, inter-alia, that the relief claimed by the

petitioner in the original application, i.e. age relaxation, was not

sought by him in his application for appearing in the examination for

Assistant Loco Pilot, a copy of which was filed by the respondent

along with their counter affidavit dated 5.3.2008 before the Tribunal.

Along with his application the petitioner had only produced a

certificate issued by Hewlett Packard Ltd. certifying that the

petitioner had undergone Apprenticeship training from 16th April

1994 to 15th April, 1995. Besides the certificate for 1 year, the

applicant had annexed with his application his mark sheet and

certificates issued by the Ministry of Labour, National Council for

Vocational Training. The petitioner had also produced a copy of his

degree of Bachelor of Arts issued by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar

University, Agra along with his mark sheet during the graduate

course and the certificate for Intermediate Examination, 1991 and

the mark sheet of the Intermediate Examination, 1991. The

petitioner also produced the copy of the certificate issued by the

Central Board of Secondary Education for Delhi Secondary School

Examination, 1989 and the mark sheet for the same, besides

personal data sheet of Railway Recruitment Board, Bhopal.

12. The respondent categorically asserted that the age relaxation

under two heads was not permissible as per para 2.1.7 of the

Employment Notification which is as under:-

"2.1.7 Candidates may note that age relaxation benefits will not be permitted simultaneously under more than one heads."

The respondent categorically pleaded that as per the

application filed by the petitioner, he had sought age relaxation

under para 2.1.9 for 1 year, during which he completed the Act

Apprentice, for which he had also submitted documentary proof. No

other age relaxation in the application form was sought, nor was any

proof for the same submitted.

13. The respondent also relied on para 6.4 of the Employment

Notification contemplating that the Railway Recruitment Board was

free to reject any application not fulfilling the requisite criteria at any

stage of recruitment. Para 6.4 of the notification is as under:-

"Before applying for the post, the candidates should ensure that he/she fulfils the eligibility criteria. The R.R.B will be free to reject any application not fulfilling the requisite criteria at any stage of recruitment and if

appointed such candidate is liable to be summarily removed from service."

14. The Tribunal considered the pleas and contentions of the

parties and held that in Colum-6 of the application regarding

grounds for seeking age relaxation which was filled by the petitioner

in his own handwriting, he sought relaxation under para 2.1.9 of the

said notification for the period in which he had completed the course

of apprentice. The Tribunal noted that the fact that the petitioner

worked in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟

Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi for 5 years had

not been mentioned in his application. The Tribunal also came to the

conclusion that the petitioner informed the Railway Recruitment

Board that he worked in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office

Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi for

5 years only later on and, consequently, the RRB could not have

granted age relaxation to the petitioner on a ground which was not

canvassed by him and for which no certificate had been submitted

along with the application form. Therefore, in these circumstances,

Railway Recruitment Board was fully justified in not considering the

petitioner‟s application for service for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot,

nor was he entitled for age relaxation on account of his alleged

service in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟

Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi.

15. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 1st September,

2008 dismissing his original application, the present writ petition

has been filed by the petitioner contending, inter-alia, that he had

attached the requisite documents with his application form which

also included the certificate dated 14th January, 2003 issued by the

Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer

Cooperative Stores Ltd., Kishanganj, Delhi certifying that he had

worked with them, from 1st May, 1995 to 31st December, 2001. The

grievance of the petitioner is that his application should have been

rejected summarily and since he was allowed to appear in the written

examination, therefore, his candidature could not have been rejected

and he should have been given the age relaxation of 5 years. The

petitioner again reiterated that he had submitted the requisite

documents seeking age relaxation.

16. Before this Court, pursuant to a direction, an affidavit dated

1st February, 2010 was filed on behalf of the respondent contending

categorically that for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot Grade Rs.3050-

4590/- the prescribed age limit was 18-30 years as on 1st July, 2006.

The notification categorically stipulated that the candidates applying

for the post should ensure that they had fulfilled the eligibility

criteria, otherwise, the Railway Recruitment Board was entitled to

reject any application not fulfilling the requisite criteria at any stage

of the recruitment and the appointment of such candidates was also

liable to be cancelled. Regarding allowing the petitioner to appear in

the examination, it has been contended that the entrance in any

examination is provisional as all the applications are checked

thoroughly at a later stage, on account of a large number of

applications being received by the Railway Recruitment Board

Examination. It was reiterated and emphasized that the petitioner

had only sought age relaxation of 1 year and had also attached only

one certificate in support of his claim for age relaxation of 1 year and

the alleged certificate from the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts

Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. Kishanganj,

Delhi was neither categorically stated in the application form, nor

was any certificate annexed with the same and hence the plea of the

petitioner that all the requisite certificates were annexed with the

application form is incorrect.

17. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties in

detail and has also perused the writ petition and the affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondent and the record of the Central Administrative

Tribunal, which has been filed along with the writ petition. The

respondent also produced the original record and the original

application submitted by the petitioner to the Railway Recruitment

Board. On perusal of the original application, a copy of which was

also filed before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the petitioner had

not filed the certificate dated 14th January, 2003 issued by the

Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer

Cooperative Stores Ltd. Kishanganj, Delhi certifying that the

petitioner had worked as salesman from 1st May, 1995 to 31st

December, 2001. Non filing of the said certificate along with the

application is also augmented by the fact that in the column seeking

age relaxation, the petitioner had not indicated that he is seeking

relaxation also on account of having worked as salesman with the

Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer

Cooperative Stores Ltd. Kishanganj, Delhi from 1st May, 1995 to 31st

December, 2001.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to give any

satisfactory reply nor has he pointed out any facts from which it can

be inferred satisfactorily and rationally that the said certificate was

produced along with the original application submitted to the

Railway Recruitment Board for consideration for the post of Assistant

Loco Pilot in the scale of Rs.3050-4590. This has not been denied

and cannot be denied by the petitioner that under para- 2.1.7 of

Employment Notice, it is categorically stipulated that age relaxation

benefits would not be permitted simultaneously under more than one

head. In the application, the petitioner had sought age relaxation

under para 2.1.9 in respect of COURSE COMPLETE ACT

APPRENTICESHIP and therefore, in terms of Clause 2.1.7, the

petitioner could not have claimed age relaxation on account of having

worked as salesman with the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts

Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. under the

COURSE COMPLETE ACT APPRENTICESHIP, under a different head.

The petitioner was entitled for age relaxation for one year and

therefore, the age relaxation for more than one year could not be

given to him nor the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able

to show any other term and condition of employment notice or any

other Office Order or direction under which the petitioner, in these

circumstances, could get age relaxation of more than one year. With

the age relaxation of one year, the petitioner is ineligible and this fact

cannot be refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since age

relaxation was not permitted simultaneously under more than one

head, therefore, the period from 1st May, 1995 to 31st December,

2001 as salesman with the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office

Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. Kishanganj, Delhi

could not be considered nor it was sought by the petitioner. The

Tribunal has rightly held that since the petitioner had not sought age

relaxation for the period he worked as salesman in the above said

organization, neither the respondent could have known about it nor

could have considered the age relaxation for the said period for the

petitioner, nor it was permissible under the Terms and Conditions of

the Employment notice. The reasons, as detailed and inferred by the

Tribunal, declining the relief sought by the petitioner in paragraph 5

to 8 in the impugned order dated 1st September, 2008, are as under:-

"5. The Applicant has also enclosed a copy of the Application submitted by him to the RRB, which is placed at Annex A-3. At page 2 of the Application, there is column 06 regarding the grounds for the applicants for seeking age relaxation. The Applicant has, in his own hand, filled against this column "PARA-2.1.9 COURSE COMPLETE ACT APPRENTICESHIP". The fact of his working in the Railway Cooperative Society for five years has not been mentioned in the application.

6. The learned counsel for the Applicant has not been able to give any specific answer to the query as to how the RRB could have given relaxation to the applicant if he had not mentioned the fact of his having worked in the quasi administrative office of Railway Organisation.

7. The Applicant has informed the RRB only later that he had worked in the Railway Cooperative Society for five years. The document, which he has himself

submitted i.e. the Application form, adverted to above, itself clearly shows that he has claimed age relaxation only under paragraph 2.1.9 of the advertisement. The RRB could not have clairvoyance to decipher somehow that the applicant had worked in such an organisation and would be entitled to age relaxation.

8. Under these circumstances, the RRB was fully justified in not considering the Applicant‟s service in Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited for grant of age relaxation. Finding no merit in the OA, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."

19. If the petitioner could not claim the age relaxation as claimed

by him in the original application and in the writ petition, he

remained ineligible. In the circumstances, he cannot invoke estoppel

or any other right against the respondent by saying that as he was

allowed to appear in the written examination, therefore, he became

eligible for the said post. The respondent had filed the affidavit dated

27th January, 2010 pursuant to the order dated 12th November, 2009

passed by this Court. No response to the said affidavit was filed by

the petitioner. It is categorically averred in the affidavit by the

respondent that the examination for selection to the post of Assistant

Loco Pilot was provisional, which was also detailed in para 6.4 of

Employment Notification. The reason given by the respondent is that

the applications are checked thoroughly at a later stage as the

number of applications received in any Railway Recruitment Board

Examination are very high and consequently, if any candidate does

not fulfill the terms and conditions stipulated in the Employment

Notice, his candidature is liable to be cancelled at any stage,

whenever the ineligibility is noticed. Reliance has been placed by the

respondent on (2005) 7 SCC 177, A.P. Public Service Commission v.

Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors. It was held by the Supreme Court

that when the column for disclosure of particulars in the application

form is left blank and declaration of non-employment was falsely

made, the Commission was justified in cancelling candidature of the

applicant. The petitioner also sought age relaxation under para-

2.1.9 of COURSE COMPLETE ACT APPRENTICESHIP and not for

having worked as salesman in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts

Office Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. In the

circumstances, no irregularity or illegality can be attributed to the

respondent in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner even

though he was allowed to appear in the examination as later on it

transpired that he was ineligible.

20. In the circumstances, inference of the Tribunal that the

Railway Recruitment Board was fully justified in not considering the

petitioner‟s service in the Northern Railway Traffic Accounts Office

Employees‟ Consumer Cooperative Stores Ltd. for grant of age

relaxation and, thus, holding that he was ineligible for the post of

Assistant Loco Pilot in the scale of Rs.3050-4590 cannot be termed

to be illegal or having such irregularity which will entitle the

petitioner to the relief claimed by him that the respondent be

directed to review the case of the petitioner for appointment to the

said post, nor the order of the Tribunal impugned by the petitioner

can be set aside in the facts and circumstances.

21. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality, irregularity

or such perversity in the order dated 1st September, 2008 passed in

OA No.2073/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, dismissing the original application of the petitioners so as to

entail any interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is,

therefore, dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs

in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

August 17, 2011.

vk