Delhi High Court

Ranjit Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 April, 2019

$~37
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 22.04.2019

+      W.P.(C) 13258/2018 & CM APPLN. 51575/2018
       RANJIT KUMAR GUPTA                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through        Mr.Arpit Bhargava, Adv. with
                                         Ms.Hina Bhargava & Mr.Varun
                                         Talwar, Advs.

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                                 ..... Respondents
                     Through             Mr.J.K. Singh, Standing counsel with
                                         Mr.Harsh Pandit, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby

directing respondent no.1 to implement guidelines being RBE No.138/2014

dated 10.12.2014 in letter and spirit.

2. Further seeks direction to set aside the order dated 07.06.2018 passed

by respondent no.2 in violation of mandatory guidelines of respondent no.1.

Consequently, directing respondent no.2 to issue call letter in terms of RBE

No.138/2014 in second block date and appoint petitioner in terms thereof.

3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner belongs to Other

Backward Class (OBC) and is a disabled person with 100% visual

impairment which is evident from the certificate dated 12.02.2014 issued by

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to the petitioner.

Respondent no.1 issued guidelines dated 10.12.2014 on open market

recruitment to posts in Pay Band-1 (Grade Pay of ₹ 1800) which stipulates

that a candidate will be given two block dates to complete procedure of

appointment. Accordingly, on 25.02.2016, the petitioner appeared in

examination organized by respondent no.2 for Group 'D' cadre for Eastern

Railways. Though the petitioner was successful candidate with 57.28 marks,

the petitioner wrote to RRC, Delhi for rechecking of his marks. Since no

reply was received, the petitioner filed RTI on 18.07.2016 against which till

date no reply is received from RRC, Delhi.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that the first block date i.e. 27.06.2016

of the document verification, 151 candidates were called for document

verification organised on 27.06.2016, 28.06.2016 and 29.06.2016. As only

14 candidates reported to RRC/ER and 67 candidates were absentees,

accordingly, a notification was published in newspapers on 21.07.2016 for

absentees of the first block date. Notification was also published on

02.08.2016 for second block date of documents verification to be held on

from the website of respondent no.2 and is must for appearing for document

verification. On 12.08.2016, call letter for verification of documents

uploaded on website by respondent no.2 asking to appear on 12.08.2016

itself at Kolkata. With lot of difficulty, the petitioner reaches Kolkata on

18.08.2016 but was turned down by respondent no.2 and was not given

second block date in violation of guidelines of respondent no.1. Thereafter,

the petitioner approached the Chief Commissioner for persons with

Disabilities against respondent no.2 for not communicating to him regarding

document verification well in advance and for not granting him second

block date in violation of RBE No.138/2014 notification.

5. Vide order dated 06.11.2017, the complaint of the petitioner was

dismissed by the court of Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities

despite admitting to the fact of prima facie violation of rights of the

petitioner who is a disabled person with 100% visual impairment. It was also

stated in the said order dated 06.11.2017, no other mode of communication

except uploading of communication on the website for informing about call

letter is adopted by respondent no.2.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given

even one chance for the document verification because he received call letter

dated 12.08.2016 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear on the said

date itself, which was not possible by any mode, for the document

verification.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even if it is

assumed that such letter was uploaded on 02.08.2016 then as per the

communication of the respondents dated 20.12.2016, the petitioner was one

of the 39th fresh candidates who were called for document verification

scheduled on 12.08.2016. Thus, the petitioner is entitled one more chance to

appear for documents verification in compliance with RBE guidelines dated

10.12.2014.

8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit whereby admitted that in

terms of instructions contained in Railway Board's letter No.

E(RRB)/2008/25/10 dated 25.07.2008, document verification (DV) of the

eligible qualified candidates was conducted in the ratio of 1:1.3 as against

notified vacancies. It is further admitted that as per the laid down procedure,

the first DV for all 151 eligible candidates was planned between 27.06.2016

to 29.06.2016 at RRC/ER/Kolkata's office. The candidates were notified

about the 1st block date for DV through notice on RRC/ER's website for

which e-mail was sent to the conducting agency on 09.06.2016 with the

clear indication to online dispatch of call letters latest by 13.06.2016 i.e.

keeping a gap of 14 days.

9. It is also admitted that 67 absentees, an indicative reminder notice was

issued by RRC/ER in the leading newspapers as well as web upload was

done on 21.07.2016. Among these 67 absentees, only 14 candidates reported

to RRC/ER.

10. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since total 116

vacancies were indented by RRC/ER, hence, 151 candidates as per merit

were called for DV. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the list of

151 eligible candidates who were called for DV in the ratio of 1:1.3 as

against notified vacancies as per merit order.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that

since the number of absentees was huge in the special recruitment drive for

PWD candidates, which was done in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, an opportunity was further given to the extra candidates

who were successful in the written test, but were below in the merit order as

a special consideration. The target date for finalization of SRD had been

exceeded and only as a special consideration, some extra candidates were

called for first time DV against absentees and there was no provision for any

such second DV to be followed for such cases.

12. The fact remains that RBE guidelines dated 10.12.2014 is as under:

"(iii) Document verification be held in terms of instructions contained in para 7.9 of Annexure-I of RBE No.121/2005 in such a manner that a candidate appearing for the same may be given 02(two) block dates on which a candidate can get this procedure done. The two block dates shall have a minimum gap of 02(two) weeks. This may be implemented in recruitment exercise with respect notification issued in 2013 and thereafter."

13. The selection process in question was initiated pursuant to the

directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for physically

challenged candidates even though the RBE guidelines dated 10.12.2014 is

applicable. The respondents have failed to establish that the petitioner failed

to appear in the first and second DV dates but the case of the respondents is

that on 02.08.2016, first date of verification on the website was uploaded to

appear on 12.08.2016. however, petitioner failed to appear.

14. Annexure P-7 which is at page 46 depicts that vide said letter, the

petitioner was asked to appear in person on 12.08.2016 at 15:00 p.m. for

verification of documents at Kolkata. Even if it is assumed, that was the

first chance to the petitioner and he received before time and failed to appear

in the document verification still as per the guidelines noted above, the