(Reserved on 17.12.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****

This is the 19^th Day of January, 2026 Original Application No.701/2016 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Anoop Kumar Bhartiya Son of Masuriya Deen Resident of Lakharanwa, Grapur Phoolpur Tharwi, Allahabad.

……….. Applicant By Adv.: Shri Rohit Upadhyay Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. General Manager, North Central Railways, NawabYusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

3. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway Nawab Yusuf Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

……….… Respondents By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri Sunil holding brief of Shri Rohit Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant on 23.05.2016 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for quashing of the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Respondent-3 and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as a Group –D employee under them and to pay his regular monthly salary every month.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are that the applicant applied under the Scheduled Caste category pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2013 issued by the respondent Railways for recruitment to Group-D posts against 2715 vacancies. He was issued a call letter and appeared in the written examination held in November 2014, which he duly qualified. Thereafter, he was called for and successfully cleared the Physical Efficiency Test conducted in March 2015, followed by document verification in October 2015.

3.1 Subsequently, while declaring the final result, the respondents rejected the candidature of the applicant on the ground that his handwriting/thumb impression did not match, alleging impersonation. A show cause notice dated 27.01.2016 was issued to the applicant, to which he submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and asserting that he himself appeared at all stages of the selection, including biometric thumb impression and video recording during PET.

3.2 However, as per the applicant, without properly considering the reply and without referring to the available biometric and video records, the respondents passed an order dated 02.05.2016 cancelling his candidature. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.

4. In the Counter Affidavit dated 28.09.2016 filed from the side of the respondents, it is stated that the applicant applied pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2013 after giving a clear declaration under his thumb impression and signature that all particulars furnished by him were true and that his candidature was liable to be cancelled at any stage in case of any false information or ineligibility.

4.1 It is averred that the applicant was provisionally declared successful in the written examination under Roll No. 2120503917, subject to verification and medical examination. However, during the course of the selection process, it was found that the thumb impression taken at the time of the written examination did not match with the thumb impression affixed during the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). Although the thumb impression taken at the time of document verification/medical examination on 07.10.2015 matched with one of the impressions, the mismatch at different stages raised serious doubts about impersonation and consequently, the applicant was not allowed to proceed further in the selection process.

4.2 The respondents further submitted that, in view of the applicant’s suspicious conduct, a show cause notice dated 27.01.2016 was issued seeking clarification. As the reply submitted by the applicant was found to be unsatisfactory, the