Appointment discrepancies based on merit require adherence to statutory rules, and procedural delays must not harm candidates' rights to seniority and benefits.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. In the present petition, petitioner claims to have applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Railway Protection Force (henceforth referred to as the `RPF'), Ministry of Railway pursuant to advertisement No.2/2011 dated 13.04.2011 and upon successfully clearing the selection process, he was called for Viva-Voce and documents verification. However, his candidature was turned down on account of deficiency in the caste certificate, having not been in the format prescribed in the advertisement.

2. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 36/2014 inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to accept his caste certificate and to consider him for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in RAILWAY ZONE (RPF), Ministry of Railway. Vide Judgment dated 30.01.2015 the Court held that the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner was in requisite format and directed the RPF to appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector under the Scheduled Caste Category, while permitting the respondent to verify its authenticity from the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had issued it. According to petitioner, despite specific direction by the Court vide Judgment dated 30.01.2015, he was not appointed and had to prefer a miscellaneous application being CM No 14805/2015 in W.P.(C) No. 36/2014, wherein this Court called upon the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Zone (RPF) on 12.10.2015, pursuant whereto the respondents on 02.11.2015 reported compliance in the matter. However, on 19.10.2015, the respondent appointed the petitioner in Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) instead of RPF and was directed to report for training on 11.11.2015. The petitioner claims to have completed his two years' training and probation period on 24.01.2018. Thereafter, he made a representation for consideration of his joining in the Railway Zone (RPF) and to treat him on parity with 53rd batch, who were promoted as Inspector. The petitioner thereafter again claims to have written letters dated 21.05.2018 and 06.10.2018 to the Director General, RPF, duly forwarded by his Superiors, but according to him, no action has been taken by the respondents.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the criteria for appointment in the 53rd Batch in RPF and RPSF was as per merit of marks obtained and preference submitted by the applicants. The candidates who had secured 96.75 marks and had submitted preference as RPF, were given appointments in RPF. However, even though petitioner had secured 99.25 marks and had also filled his preference as RPF, he has been deliberately given appointment in RPSF by the respondents, which is arbitrary to Rule 89 of Railway Zone (RPF) Rules, 1987. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner's merit position falls at Serial No.23 in the 53rd Batch and since he has been appointed pursuant to directions of this Court for the selection process of 53rd Batch, petitioner is seeking parity with consequential seniority and benefits.

4. To refute the claims of petitioner, learned senior panel counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that petitioner's candidature for the post of SI was turned down by the Screening Committee during the course of verification of documents on 09.02.2013 as the Caste Certificate was not as per prescribed annexure of the employment notice. Next submitted that the recruitment process for all 511 notified vacancies was already over consequent upon verification of documents of all candidates on 09.02.2013. However, subsequent upon decisions of this Court dated 30.01.2015 and 09.03.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 36/2014, the authenticity of Caste Certificate of petitioner was verified and pursuant to receipt of Verification Report dated 18.05.2015 from the concerned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner was called for viva voce on 20.6.2015 in the next phase of selection proc