The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish their claim for a specific quota; participating in a mandatory test from which the claimed quota is exempt serves as evidence against such a claim.

Reserved on 30.04.2026

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

(O R D E R)

BY JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII, MEMBER (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to immediately consider the case of the applicant for providing him appointment under employment notice No. 1/2007 on the post of Group ‘D’ category under Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad under disabled quota.

(ii) That any other relief which may be considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the applicant including cost of the application”.

The Original Application was initially filed by the applicant before the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal. After completion of pleadings on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J) and Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member (A), vide order dated 04.11.2025, observed that the Lucknow Bench did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter and accordingly referred the issue to the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Thereafter vide order dated 4.2.2026, Registrar of the Lucknow Bench was informed that file shall remain with the Lucknow Bench. However, the matter shall be heard by the 1st court of Allahabad Bench through virtual mode, thereafter case came up for hearing before this Tribunal.

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant applied for appointment to Group ‘D’ post under Employment Notice No. 01/2007 against the Physically Handicapped (PH) quota in the unreserved category and was allotted Roll No. 31033435. He duly disclosed his disability status in the application form and possessed a valid disability certificate showing 40% disability issued by the competent authority. Pursuant to his application, he was called for and appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test held on 29.04.2011. Thereafter, his disability certificate, admit card and declaration form were taken by the authorities and he was directed to await the call letter for the written examination. However, despite successfully clearing the physical test and completing all required formalities, no call letter for the written examination was issued to him, nor was given any information regarding the status of his candidature. On seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the applicant came to know that his candidature had not been considered under the PH quota. Therefore, through this OA, the applicant seeks consideration of his candidature and appointment under the disabled quota in accordance with Employment Notice No. 01/2007.

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Per contra, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating therein that recruitment process for Group ‘D’ posts under Employment Notice No. 1/2007 was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed by the Railway Board, which required that candidates first to qualify the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and thereafter appear in the written examination. The applicant’s application was scrutinized along with other candidates and it was found that he had not complied with the prescribed requirements under the relevant columns of the employment notice. Since his application did not reflect a valid claim under the Physically Handicapped (PH) category, he was treated as an Unreserved (UR) category candidate and accordingly issued a PET call letter under that category. The respondents stated in the counter affidavit that the call letter specifically instructed the candidates to carefully verify all particulars, including category details and report any discrepancy to the Railway Recruitment Cell at least three days before the PET. Despite this clear instruction, the applicant did not raise any objection or