Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Anr vs Suneel Kumar on 8 February, 2016
$~8.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 7882/2015
Date of decision: 8th February, 2016
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. R.V. Sinha & Mr. A.S. Singh,
Advocates.
versus
SUNEEL KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India [General Manager
Northern Railway and Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment)] assailing
the order dated 1st October, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short) submits that the application
form submitted by the respondent Suneel Kumar for appointment to the
post of Khalasi/Helper or equivalent post was invalid. Learned counsel for
the petitioners has relied upon Ekta Shakti Foundation versus
Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609 in support of his
contention, and has urged that this is a case of erroneous and wrong
exercise of the power of judicial review.
2. The impugned order records that the respondent-Suneel Kumar, the
petitioner before the tribunal, had applied for appointment to the post of
Khalasi/Helper pursuant to an advertisement published in "Employment
W.P. (C) No. 7882/2015 Page 1 of 4
News, 1-7 January, 2011". The application form submitted by the
respondent was examined and admit card, with Roll No. 0139101 was
issued. The respondent had appeared in the written test and having
qualified, was called for the physical efficiency test. Subsequently, in the
last week of January, 2013, the respondent came to know that other
similarly placed candidates had been issued appointment letters and had
even joined duty, while the respondent had not received the offer of
appointment. He approached the Assistant Personnel Officer
(Recruitment) and learnt that his candidature had been rejected on the
ground that his candidature was declared invalid as the application form
submitted by him had the words "South Central Railway" written thereon,
instead of "Northern Railway".
3. In the impugned judgment and final order the tribunal records that
both "Northern Railways" and "South Central Railways" had the same
format application forms. The application form of the respondent, was
verified and checked and thereafter the Railway Recruitment Cell,
Northern Railway, New Delhi had issued the admit card for the written
examination. The mistake, it was observed, was not a good reason to
invalidate the selection, after the respondent had duly participated in the
selection process and qualified.
4. We have examined the application form, which was also published
in the advertisement. The application form has various columns that were
W.P. (C) No. 7882/2015 Page 2 of 4
to be filled up and declarations signed by the candidate. The first column
in the form mentions Recruitment Cell/Northern Railway Employment
Notice No. 220/E/Open Mkt/RRC/2010, i.e., the zone of the Railways,
Railway Recruitment Cell No.,etc. The filled up form, complete in all
respects was sent by post to the Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern
Railway. The respondent had paid the prescribed fee by way of demand
draft/postal order. It is obvious that the demand draft/postal order, was in
the name of Northern Railway and the instrument was duly encashed. It
appears that the respondent while filling up the form did not notice the
words "South Central Railway" printed on the said form, instead of
"Northern Railway". Probably the respondent had concentrated on filling
up several columns, which had to be handwritten. In the given fact
situation, we do not think that this lapse by any stretch would result in an
invalid form. The form was certainly posted to DRM Office, Northern
Railway, AIRF, 4, State Entry Road, New Delhi and was received on or
before the due date. The respondent was also issued the admit card and
had to participate in the written examination. Once the respondent had
qualified, he had appeared for the physical efficiency test. Just as the
respondent had failed to notice the words "South Central Railway" written
on the form, the petitioners and their officers had also not noticed the said
mistake. Relevant particulars, including the postal order/demand draft
number including the advertisement number, etc. were correct.
W.P. (C) No. 7882/2015 Page 3 of 4
5. Separate selections are conducted by each zonal railway, who have
independent and separate recruitment offices. The form in question was
sent to the Recruitment Cell of Northern Railways. It is obvious that the
respondent had applied for selection to the Northern Railway. He had given
details and particulars of the advertisement published by the Northern
Railways.
6. The contention of the petitioners that power of judicial review is
limited and confined to Wednesbury Principles is correct. However, in the
facts of the present case, the petitioner's stand to treat the form as invalid,
is wholly arbitrary, completely unreasonable and does not meet the
mandate of law. Such action can be certainly interfered with by the
Tribunal and the Courts to do justice and correct the error in the decision
making process, which did not differentiate between the nature of the lapse
and whether it should affect the selection process resulting in invalidation.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioners will
process the case of the respondent in accordance with law. Requisite letter
will be issued to the respondent within a period of three weeks from the
date a copy of this order is received.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
FEBRUARY 08, 2016
VKR
