(Reserved on 25.11.2024)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad nd This the 02 day of December, 2024 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Civil Contempt Application No. 195 of 2018 Arising out of Original Application No. 64 of 2016 Arvind Kumar Singh, aged about 30 years (DoB 13.08.1987), son of Sri Siddhi Nath Singh, Resident of Village Paniyari, Post Balikaranganj District Pratapgarh (UP) – 230402, Presently residing at House No. 911, Purab Tola, Post – Soraon, Allahabad.

………..Petitioner By Advocate: Shri S K Pandey and Shri R K Singh Versus Mr. S.A.M. Naqvi, Chairman, Railway Recruitment Control Board [Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC)]Valmiki Chaurah, Nabab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.

.………Respondents / Opposite Parties By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai ORDER (Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

1. Shri SK Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant contempt petition vide no. 195 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No. 64 of 2016.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite successfully clearing all the stages of the examination conducted for recruitment on posts of Group – D cadre, the petitioner’s result was not declared by the respondents and similarly situated candidates were offered appointment and they were permitted to join. Being aggrieved, the applicant approached the Tribunal earlier vide OA No. 1200 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2014 directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant. In compliance, the respondents rejected the applicant’s claim vide order dated 28.11.2014 being aggrieved with which, the applicant again approached the Tribunal vide the subject original application. The original application was heard at length and vide order dated 12.04.2016, relief was granted to the petitioner in the form of interim protection whereby one post was directed to be kept vacant during the pendency of the OA and later the OA was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2018. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 and remitted the matter back to the respondent no. 2 to consider the modification of the order dated 30.04.2015 in light of the order and consider the applicant’s case afresh and pass a revised order in a time bound manner. Learned counsel further argued that although the time limit of two months was prescribed by the Tribunal for compliance but the same was never taken care of at the end of the respondents. Learned counsel further argued that the only thing respondents were required to do is to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner treating the certificate of Poorva Madhyama (equivalent to High School) as valid in view of the judgment of the Tribunal but the same was not done.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that to the utter surprise of the petitioner, an order was passed by Shri Vivek Prakash, Chairman/RRC/ALD on 18.07.2018 refusing to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal in judgment dated 25.04.2018. It was stated therein that the petitioner’s case was already considered in light of earlier instructions issued by the Railway Board and it is not feasible to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on Group D post. Learned counsel argued that in para 9 of the judgment dated 25.04.2018, it was clearly held that the certificate of the Purva Madhyama issued by the UP Madhyamic Sanskrit Shiksha Parishad (UPMSSP) issued in favour of the applicant in 2004 was found valid without any infirmity by the Tribunal and it was declared to be remained valid for the purpose of granting appointment to the petitioner. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circu