Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2849
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, J, DR. SANJIV KUMAR, A
Rajvir Singh Rajvi – Appellant
Versus
South Western Railway – Respondent
O.A./232/2024
Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel
Human errors in application forms, especially by individuals with disabilities, should be corrected to ensure fair treatment and inclusion in recruitment processes.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Correction of application - Applicant sought to change disability classification from Visual Impairment-Blind
(B) to Low Vision after scoring above the cut-off marks for the latter category - The Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal approach in cases involving human error, particularly for physically challenged individuals. (Paras 1, 11, 12, 14)
(B) Human Error - The Tribunal recognized that mistakes made during online application submissions, especially by individuals with disabilities, should be rectified to ensure fair treatment and inclusion. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a visually impaired individual, applied for a Group D position but was incorrectly categorized as blind due to a clerical error. He scored above the cut-off for the Low Vision category but was not shortlisted.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to allow the applicant to correct his disability classification and consider him for the Low Vision category, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity for persons with disabilities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant could correct the error in his disability classification to be considered under the Low Vision category.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that human errors in application forms should be sympathetically considered, especially for individuals with disabilities, to promote their rights and opportunities.
Result: The application was allowed, directing the respondents to permit the correction and consider the applicant under the Low Vision category.
ORDER (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal (b) this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent No. 2 to permit the applicant to correct the error and change the disability from VISUAL IMPAIRMENT – BLIND (B) to Low vision category and as the applicant has secure much more than the cut off marks this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to further direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the applicant under the Low Vision category and take further steps in regard to pre-appointment procedure;
(c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of the OA in the interests of justice.”
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that, pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the 2nd respondent to various posts in Group D categories in Level-1 posts in South Western Railway, the applicant being physically challenged person with a disability of low vision and an eligible candidate, submitted his application on 06.04.2019 through CSC (Common Service Centre/e.mitra). Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the examination through a scribe and scored 52.51327 marks in the examination held on 06.10.2022. On 16.02.2023, 2nd respondent issued a letter Corrigendum/Amendment wherein for category VI (VI-LV), the cut-off for shortlisting the PwBD (Person with Benchmark Disabilities) candidates who are called for document verification/medical examination is 31.30265.
3. As the applicant did not receive any call letter for document verification or medical examination, he submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 23.03.2023. In response, the applicant was informed that he has secured 52.51327 normalised marks but he could not be selected because the cut off for VI-B was 60.88505. At that time, the applicant realised that a bonafide error appears to have crept in while filling the application by the person manning the e.mitra i.e., as against the disability of Low Vision, it appears that it has been filled as Visual Impairment- Blind (B) which was not correct since, as could be seen from the disability certificate, he has only a low vision and he is not blind. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a representation duly enclosing the relevant documents and sought for an opportunity to correct his category from Visual Impairment-Blind (B) to that of Low Vision which remains unconsidered. On 27.12.2023, the applicant submitted another application under Right to Information Act intending to know the vacancy position in respect of vacancies reserved for candidates with disability. In terms of the information received, a total of 35 candidates were empanelled; 19 candidates have been referred for discrepancy and 5 persons were absent against total 59 vacant posts. Under the circumstances, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the disability certificate issued by the competent authority as per Annexure-A3 specifies that he has 75% disability, however, instead of stating his disability as Low Vision, it was stated as Visual Impairment-Blind (B) in the application submitted online through the person manning e.mitra. The same being a bonafide error, the representation submitted by the applicant ought to have been considered by the respondents in a favourable manner but the respondents failed to respond to the same.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1) Shimala Jat vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, DD: 27.01.2017 ),
2) Kavita Choudhary vs The Registrar (Examination) , Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr. ( Hon’ble High Court of Raj
