Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

King Vivek vs The Union Of India Rep By Its Chairman Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,Dr P V Cherian Crescent Road Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,The Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,Dr P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building

Madras High Court|31 July, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Order of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for Railways/respondents 1 and 2.
2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for the post of Group-D in the Railways, wrote the examination and passed the same and thereafter, he was called for verification of original documents. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 27.7.2015 contending that the petitioner's left thumb impression seems to have not matched with the one taken during the Physical Efficiency Test. It further appears that the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 3.8.2015. Not being satisfied with the same, it appears that, the Railway had debarred the petitioner, for his lifetime, from appearing the Railway Recruitment Examinations. Aggrieved against the the same, the writ petitioner had filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal and hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has not properly appraised of the facts and hence, the same needs interference of this court.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways would contend that the petitioner's explanation with regard to mismatch of left thumb impression that it was obtained in a hurried manner was not satisfactory and hence, opinion from the Finger Print Expert was obtained before debarring the petitioner and the petitioner had not submitted any valid reasons to disprove the opinion of the Finger Print Expert. He would further contend that it is not only the petitioner, but, there are about 380 candidates, who were debarred on the ground of impersonation and therefore, no ill-motive can be attributed as against the Railways. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways would rely upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.3371 of 2011, dated 14.2.2011 wherein it is held that "From the materials available on record, it is clear that, not only the application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the left thumb impression was smudged but also 22,000 other applications were rejected on the same ground. Therefore, we hold that the Tribunal had rejected the case of the petitioner only on it being satisfied that the petitioner did not comply with the instruction contained in column No.22.2 of the Notification dated 24.11.2007. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ..."
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the materials available on record, this court finds that when the Railway had issued show cause notice contending that the left thumb impression of the petitioner mismatches with the one obtained at the time of Physical Efficiency Test, the petitioner had not offered proper explanation to disprove the same. Further, when the Railway had debarred about 380 candidates on the ground of impersonation by following the Railway Board Circular dated 9.3.2000 in RRCB No.3/2000 to curb impersonation, and the petitioner being one among them, no personal motive can be attributed against the Railways.
6. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To:
1 The Union of India Rep. by its Chairman Railway Recruitment Board No.5 Dr.P.V.Cherian Crescent Road Egmore Chennai-600 008.
2 The Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment Cell No.5 Dr.P.V.Cherian Crescent Road Egmore Chennai-600 008.
3 The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building Chennai-600 104.
(H.G.R.,J.)(G.J.,J.) 31.7.2017.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
ssk.
W.P.No.3820 of 2017
31.7.2017.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

King Vivek vs The Union Of India Rep By Its Chairman Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,Dr P V Cherian Crescent Road Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,The Assistant Personnel Officer/Recruitment Railway Recruitment P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,Dr P V Cherian Crescent Road Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building ,The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal City Civil Court Building

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2017
Judges
  • Huluvadi G Ramesh
  • G Jayachandran