ORDER

Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

“i) By an appropriate order or direction, the Hon’be Tribunal may kindly call for the entire record pertaining to the present controversy from the Respondent Railway Recruitment Board and the impugned letter dated 12.07.2016 (Annex. A/1) may kindly be declared set aside and be quashed.

ii) By an appropriate order or direction, the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be directed to the respondent no. 3 and 4 Railway Recruitment Board to recommend the name of the applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and thereafter the respondent no.

1 be directed to appoint to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in pursuance of notification dated 18.01.2014. iii) By an appropriate order or direction, the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be directed that if there was any difficulties to appoint the applicant to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, then as per clause

1.05 of the General Instructions as mentioned in the notification dated 18.01.2014, the respondent recruitment board may kindly be directed to recommend the name of applicant to appoint any post as notified under the advertisement and thereafter the respondent no. 1 and 2 be directed to appoint the applicant.

iv) Any other order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.

v) Cost of the O.A. may kindly be awarded to the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the Ministry of Railways had issued a Centralised Employment Notice No. 01/2014 dated 18.01.2014 for filling up posts of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and Technician categories by various Railway Recruitment Boards and the applicant had applied for the post of ALP as he fulfilled all the requisites for the said appointment as he possessed qualification of secondary school examination and also had Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. After being issued a call letter, he appeared for the written examination, which was conducted on 15.06.2014, but on declaration of result of written examination in News Paper declared by respondent nos. 3 & 4, (now respondent nos. 2 & 3), roll number of the applicant was not shown. Since he has done well in the examination and yet he was not in the zone of merit, he filed several applications under RTI Act before the authorities and from them obtained his marks, cut-off marks as well as his application form submitted to the respondents. In reply to his application under RTI Act, he was informed vide letter dated 12.07.2016, (Annexure A/1), that his candidature has been rejected as per para 6.17 of the advertisement as Column No. 1 was left unfilled by the applicant in the application form. After perusal of the attached application form, it was crystal clear that column no. 1 has specified the category number in which the candidate is giving the option for preference of post. As applicant had applied to the post of ALP, therefore, he had ticked against option no. 1 presuming that category no. 1 is defined to the post of ALP under the notification and the same is evident by the Medical Certificate, which is part of the application form as he was medically fit for the post of ALP. Thus, being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondents, he has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

3. This Tribunal vide its order dated 14.09.2016, as a purely interim measure, directed the respondents to keep one post of ALP vacant if still available without adversely affecting the eligibility/ selection/ appointment of a duly qualified candidate in pursuance of the notification dated 18.01.2014.

4. After issue of notices, respondents filed their reply raising preliminary objection stating that bare peru