(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No. 1245 of 2025 This the 11^th Day of February, 2026.

HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.

HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.

Akash Kumar Age about 28 years S/o Santosh, R/o Ram Chandarpur, Post-Sadaupur, Gyanpur, Bhadohi.

….Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Majahar Ali.

Versus

1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Railway Govt. of India.

2. Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai through Chairman.

3. Deputy Chief personnel Officer/WS/GOC, Southern Raiwlay. Ponamalai.

...Respondents.

By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar.

ORDER By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

Mr. Majahar Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

“i. Issue an order or direction to the respondent no.3 to grant permission to the petitioner for joining on the post of technician Gr.-III, Diesel Electrical (Workshop) in pursuance of selection list dated 19.03.2025 issued by the respondent no.2, within stipulated period, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

ii. Issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

iii. Award cost of this application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Akash Kumar, applied for the post of Technician Grade-III (Diesel Electrical – Workshop) pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 dated 09.03.2024 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board. After participating in the selection process, the applicant qualified the written examination held on 29.12.2024 and was provisionally selected vide selection list dated 19.03.2025. The applicant was thereafter subjected to medical examination on 19.05.2025 and was declared medically fit. Subsequently, the applicant was required to submit an attestation form. In the said form, the applicant disclosed the pendency of a criminal case arising out of a village land dispute, in which he has already been granted bail and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. It is the case of the applicant that the Centralised Employment Notice did not require disclosure of criminal cases at the stage of application or examination and that the applicant did not conceal any material fact at any stage of recruitment. However, solely on the ground of pendency of the said criminal case, the respondents did not permit the applicant to join the post despite his selection and medical fitness. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in denying joining, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Trainee Technician Grade-III in Pay Matrix Level-2 (Rs. 19900/-) under the 7^th CPC in the Diesel Wing of the Mechanical Department at Central Workshops, Ponmalai, Trichy-4. It was further submitted that after due participation in the selection process, the applicant was provisionally empanelled/selected for the said post. However, despite his selection, the applicant was not permitted to join, solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against him. Learned counsel further submitted that at the stage of verification/attestation form, the applicant had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case by answering “Yes”, and there was no concealment or suppression of any material fact on his part. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying joining to the applicant merely on account of pendency of a criminal case, which is still under trial, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, particularly in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the selection of the applicant was pure