ORDER

Shri S M Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the present original application are that the applicant was initially engaged as casual Khallasi under the Railway and worked from 20.07.1978 to 22.07.1991 i.e., for about 13 years in different spells amounting to a total number of 982 working days. On the basis of a Circular dated 28.02.2001 issued by the Railway department regarding absorption of ex-casual labour from live register, the bio-data of many candidates including the applicant were called by the department for the purpose of conduction their screening test. The applicant appeared in the screening test and was declared fit in the year 2003 following which a formal appointment letter dated 23.12.2003 was issued to him. Now, the plight of the applicant is that in spite of qualifying all the tests and even issued the appointment order, the applicant is yet to be given the appointment under a Group D regular post in the respondents’ organization and accordingly has preferred the instant original application.

3. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only discrepancy as has been highlighted by the respondents for not appointing the applicant is that there is a mismatch in the date of birth of the applicant as recorded in class 6 th mark-sheet with that recorded in class 8 th . Learned counsel submits that although applicant’s mark sheet / transfer certificate of class 6 th was verified however, that of class 8th was not. The department concerned denied the appointment on the basis of this discrepancy. In fact, the applicant’s counsel submits, there was no requirement of any educational qualification as the only criteria that was fixed by the respondents for appointment of the candidates is that the candidate has to be medically fit and the applicant was already declared medically fit in Aye two category by the C.M.S. Railways on 28.02.2005 in which 8th class qualification is not necessary for absorption of ex-casual labour. Subsequently, one more appointment order was issued in favour of the applicant on 11.03.2005 but till date the applicant has not been allowed to discharge his duties.

5. With regard to the discrepancy regarding the mismatch of date of birth, the applicant’s counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that the applicant is 6th fail and his date of birth is 06.08.1960 but the second transfer certificate for 8th class was declared unauthentic in which a different date of birth was recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant also filed a notary affidavit on 26.10.2006 to the D.R.M. Jhansi requesting for appointment on the basis of 5th class mark sheet with medical fit in Aye two category but no action has been taken in this regard.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant filed a representation dated 06.01.2006 to GM and D.R.M. Jhansi for appointment in Group D as per the screening and medical stages which the applicant cleared successfully. A decision was taken upon that representation wherein the G.M. by way of a letter dated 09.01.2006 directed the D.R.M. Jhansi to take appropriate action on the claim of the applicant.

However, no action has been taken on that direction till date.

7. Drawing attention to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.05.2015, the learned counsel for the applicant further mentions that several other similarly placed candidates have been given appointment despite the same discrepancy in their educational certificates as is their in the applicant’s case.

And thus, he submits, there has been a blatant violation of natural justice as the applicant has been discriminated against while other similarly placed candidates have been accorded