Shri M.L. Chauhan: The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to quash the impugned order dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure A-1) whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of App JE-II/TMC in the grade of Rs.5000-8000 was rejected on the ground of submission of false declaration in his application with respect to genuineness of the diploma certificate. The applicant has further sought for a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to give appointment to him to the post of Junior Engineer-II/TMC.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondents 1 & 2 issued a notification in the employment news in April 2003 inviting applications for recruitment of different posts in RRB, Chandigarh as well as RRB, Jammu & Srinagar in Northern Railway and Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, including the post of Junior Engineer (TMC) in the aforesaid scale. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the applicant applied for the said post. Admit card was issued to him and he appeared in the written examination where he was declared successful. Subsequently, he was directed to appear with all relevant documents for verification. The applicant was informed that while verifying the academic qualification certificates from the concerned educational institution, it was found that the diploma certificate submitted by the applicant along with his application to the RRB, Chandigarh issued by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai was false. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant to file reply within a period of fifteen days as to why his candidature should not be treated as cancelled.
3. It may be stated here that earlier the applicant has filed OA-640/2009 before the Patna Bench of this Tribunal but the same was rejected vide the order dated 11.2.2010 on the ground that the Patna Bench has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the OA and the liberty was granted to the applicant to file the fresh OA before the court of competent jurisdiction. Now the applicant has filed the present OA before this Bench thereby praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents and the respondents have filed their separate replies. Facts, as stated above, have not been disputed by the respondents and in the reply filed by respondents 1 & 2, it has been stated that a panel of App-JE-II/TMC/Organization was received from RRB, Chandigarh vide Chairman/RRBs letter dated 16.1.2006. It is further stated that prior to offer of appointment the educational certificates submitted by the candidates were required to be verified as genuine or not from the institutes from which the candidate has qualified the diploma/degree as part of pre-appointment formalities. It is also stated that the applicant had submitted the diploma certificate issued by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Navi Mumbai. A Personnel Inspector was deputed for verification of the certificates submitted by the candidates, who verified the certificate from the institute and the Personnel Inspector submitted the report on 30.10.2006 stating that the Secretary of the Institute has informed that the applicant herein was our student having membership No.40206 for part II course. He has not passed the course and the Xerox copy of certificate, which has been sent, has not been issued by the institute. Respondents 1 & 2 have annexed a copy of the letter dated 26.9.2006 issued by the said Institute as Annexure R-1 with their reply.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 have further stated that on the basis of this information and documents provided by respondent 3, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant stating that as to why his provisional employment for the aforesaid post should not be cancelled. These respondents have further stated that the applicant has submitted a reply on 10.1.2007 along with the certificate issued by the concerned institute in which it has been stated that he has passed part-II of Tech. Engg. Examination, which was recognized by the Department of Education (HRD Ministry), which contradicts their earlier letter dated 26.9.2006. Accordingly, the reply was sent to the candidate on 3.4.2007 that his case cannot be considered due to false certificate.
6. Respondents 1 & 2 have further stated that respondent 3 suo moto vide the letter dated 2.9.2008 has informed that the certificate issued to the applicant has been issued by the Institute. It is further stated that the matter was again taken up with respondent 3 on 10.10.2008 to verify its genuineness with the clear signature of the Hon. Secretary but reply to the same has not been received. It is further stated that the certificate issued by respondent 3 is not signed by any authority but only stamped. Thus, the question of consideration of request/representation of the applicant does not arise.
7. Respondent 3 has filed its separate reply wherein the Institute is conspicuously silent about the information supplied to the Northern Railway, Baroda House vide letter dated 26.9.2006 whereby it was informed that the applicant was not the student of their institute having membership No.40206 for part II course and he has not passed the course and the Xerox copy of certificate, which has been placed, has not been issued by respondent 3. However, the applicant in his rejoinder has explained that respondent 3 did issue the certificate because the record was not available at that time with the Institute. However, in reply, respondent 3 has stated that the applicant has passed part II of the Technician Engineering Examination in December 1999 with roll No.221195.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
9. We are of the view that the applicant is not entitled to any relief and we find no fault in the action taken by respondents 1 & 2 whereby the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the basis of information given by respondent 3 regarding diploma certificate of the applicant. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the letter dated 26.9.2006 issued by respondent 3 to the Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, New Delhi, which thus reads: We want to inform you that Mr. Ajay Kumar was our student having Membership No.40206 for Part-II Course. He has not passed the course and the xerox copy of certificate which has been send to us has not been issued by our Institute.
10. Thus, as can be seen from the letter reproduced above, respondent 3 has categorically stated that the applicant was not its student having Membership No.40206 for Part II course and he has not passed the course and the Xerox copy of certificate, which has been sent to it, has not been issued by the Institute. In view of this intimation given by the Institute vide the aforesaid letter, which has been signed by the Secretary, Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) bearing seal of the Institution, we se no infirmity in the action of respondents 1 & 2 whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of App JE-II/TMC was cancelled vide Annexure A-1 order.
11. That apart, selection to the post of JE-II/TMC has been completed in the year 2007. Since the selection is over, no direction can be issued to respondents 1 & 2 at this stage to give appointment to the applicant on the aforesaid post on the basis of his provisional employment in the year 2006-07, as the panel cannot be kept alive for indefinitely. Further, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not going into the question regarding the genuineness of the diploma certificate, as the present OA is being disposed of solely on the ground that his candidature was rejected based upon the information given by respondent 3 vide letter dated 26.9.2006, which fact has been specifically admitted by the applicant in his rejoinder that the Institution had given the said information regarding Xerox copy of the certificate not being issued by the Institution and also that the applicant was not the student having membership No.40206 for part II course. Suffice it to say that it will be permissible for the applicant to seek legal remedy against respondent 3 in accordance with law, which as per the averments made by the applicant, has resulted into cancellation of his candidature for the aforesaid post.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/