JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the Railways and perused the record.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement dated 11.8.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''C.A.T.') in Original Application No. 101 of 2016 by which the application of the petitioner against cancellation of his candidature was rejected.

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order impugned is absolutely erroneous and arbitrary. The factual matrix of this case is as below:-

(i) The Railway Recruitment Cell, North-Central Railway, Allahabad issued an employment notice No. 1 of 2013, whereby applications were invited for filling up several categories of Class-IV post in Railways.

(ii) The petitioner also submitted his application in pursuance of this employment notice and he was also allotted Roll Number as 1210118369. The petitioner, after appearing in written test, was declared successful and thereafter he also qualified physical efficiency test held on 10.3.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was not called for medical test and no reason was given to the petitioner even in reply to his application under Right to Information Act, therefore, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 101 of 2016 before the C.A.T.

(iii) In reply to the above original application, the Railways had filed a short reply and in paragraph No.6 of the said short reply, it was stated by the Railways that the petitioner had filled up declaration column in OMR sheet wrongly which amounted to concealment of his identity in examination and constituting an infringement of prescribed instructions, therefore, for this reason the petitioner was not called for medical examination as well as for verification of his documents. The Railways along with its reply also brought on record a copy of the application form, submitted by the petitioner, as well as photocopy of OMR sheet of the petitioner.

(iv) After considering the aforesaid pleadings, the C.A.T. rejected the original application of the petitioner by order dated 11.8.2017 on the ground that in the OMR sheet there was specific direction which is being reproduced below:-

"Copy of the Declaration given in First page of your Question Booklet in the space given in the OMR answer sheet. Your candidature shall be cancelled if you do not copy the Declaration. You must put your signature on OMR sheet at item no.13."

And the petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected as the above condition was not directory but mandatory.

4. Learned Senior Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner contended that though in Column No.10 of OMR sheet, it is mentioned "In your own running handwriting reproduce the Declaration as given in first page of the question booklet in the space given below either in Hindi or in English.", the aforesaid stipulation in itself is quite misleading, therefore, the petitioner mistakenly reproduced the same stipulation as mentioned in Column No. 10 of OMR sheet instead of reproducing the declaration mentioned on the first page of question booklet. It was further contended by learned Senior Counsel that the purpose of the stipulation in Column No.10 of OMR sheet is to preclude imposter from appearing in examination in place of the candidate and apart from the aforesaid, there exists no other purpose of the declaration because the petitioner has already mentioned the above declaration in his application form and there is no allegation against the petitioner that the handwriting used in the Column No.10 of OMR sheet is different from the handwriting made in the declaration made in Para-22 of the application form, therefore, approac