1 2025:CGHC:43942-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6171 of 2023 1 - Keshav Narayan S/o Shri Shrikanti Narayan Aged About 39 Years Unemployed R/o C/o Santosh Nursing Home, Post Rawatsar, Pin 335524, District – Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India, Through: The Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001. 2 - Chairman Railway Recruitment Board Bilaspur Besides Office of General Managar, SECR, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004. 3 - General Manager, SECR, New GM Building, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495004. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (29.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 07.02.2023 Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.02 14:08:19 +0530 2 (Annexure-P-11) by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting : Bilaspur, has dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application No. 203/413/2016. 2. Pursuant to the Centralised Employment Notice No. 05/2012, the petitioner herein applied for the post of ECG Technician and participated in the examination held for that purpose. Ultimately, after the declaration of the result, the petitioner was kept at Serial No. 4 of the merit list (Annexure-P-6). It is the case of the petitioner that the candidates kept in Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were called for document verification, but due to lack of basic eligibility qualification, their candidature was rejected. However, the petitioner herein, who possesses the requisite qualifications, was not called for document verification, and vide communication dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure-P-8) supplied under the RTI Act, it was informed that the indent for the said post has been closed for want of suitable candidates. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide its order dated 07.02.2023 has rejected the original application of the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4 of the merit list against the single post of ECG Technician-III advertised vide Centralised Employment Notice No. 05/2012. After preparation of the 3 merit list, two candidates (meritorious and one extra candidate as per RRCB No. 8/2006 and RRCB No. 09/2008) were called for document verification, wherein it was found that neither of the candidates possessed the requisite qualification and, therefore, their candidature was rejected. The applicant/petitioner herein was not even meritorious nor amongst the one additional candidate, rather placed at Serial No. 4 of the merit list; then there is no question of his being prejudiced in not calling him for document verification after rejection of the candidature of the persons listed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the merit list. 4. Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal has acted absolutely unjustified in dismissing the application. Since the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were not eligible, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered for the document verification and the appointment. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 5. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned DSG for respondents, would support the impugned order and submit that as per circular dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure-R-2), the number of candidates called for document verification is restricted to 30% over and above the number of vacancies; therefore, the respondents were fully justified to cancel the indent for the aforesaid post for want of an eligible candidate. As such, 4 the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner applied and participated in the examination for the post of ECG Technician and stood at Serial No. 4 in the merit list; however, the candidates, Serial Nos. 1 and 2, were not found eligible for the post of ECG Technician and their candidature was rejected. In view of the circular dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-R-1) and 25.07.2008 (Annexure-R-2), in which it has clearly been provided that the number of candidates called for the document verification shall now be increased to 30% over and above the number of vacancies and in view of circulars mentioned above, the petitioner was not called for interview. 8. In that view of the matter, the Railway Board has rightly called the candidates who stood at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 for document verification, and thereafter, closed the proceedings. The Railway Board is justified in not calling the candidates who stood at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 (petitioner herein) for document verification. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the instant Writ Petition, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge Judge