IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6797 of 2010 1. VINAY KUMAR S/O SRI DWARIKA RAI R/O MOHALLA- NAGARDAHI, WARD NO. 12, P.S.- TOWN, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR……………Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS EAST CENTRAL ZONE, HAJIPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL ZONE, SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS, HAJIPUR 6. THAT ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SAMASTIPUR 7. THE SENIOR, D.M.E. (C AND W)-CUM-I.I.C. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SAMASTIPUR 8. THE SENIOR D.P.C., EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SAMASTIPUR 9. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER (C AND W) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAYS, SAMASTIPUR………………………….Respondents. ----------- For petitioner:-Mr. Rajive Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate For respondents( Railways):- Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate. --------- 6. 19-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways, the respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has dismissed O.A. No. 57 of 2008 whereby the petitioner sought a direction upon the Authorities to appoint him on the basis of a letter issued calling for scrutiny of his documents. 3. The impugned order dated 18.02.2010 has considered the cases of both the sides including the fact that during the screening process it was found that the entire - 2 - declaration required to be written on the answer sheet with regard to Group-C and also Group-D examinations was blank and therefore the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled in view of Rule-1 (b). 4. On our query, learned counsel for the respondents has produced before us the first page of the Question-Booklet of the petitioner for the examination held on 4th of February 2007. Our purpose was to look at the provision contained in 1(b) which has been described as Rule 1(b). The said provision is actually Instructions to the candidates which runs as follows:- “ INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES: 1. At the commencement of the examination you have been provided with the Answer-Sheet and Question- Booklet. Read and understand the instructions given at the back-page of the Answer-sheet and fill up the entries for roll-number, group and date of examination, etc at the specified places, otherwise your Answer-Sheet will not be evaluated. Follow the instructions given below: (a) Indicate at the specified places of the Answer-Sheet, the Question- Booklet number written on the top of the cover page and put your signature also. (b) Please write your roll number, Answer-Sheet number, name, date and time and also put your - 3 - signature at the specified places of this cover page. At the above specified place copy the „Declaration‟ in your own handwriting, otherwise your candidature will be cancelled”. 5. From the discussions and pleadings of the parties as contained in the impugned order as well as from the averments and submissions in relation to the writ petition, it is evident that there is no dispute of the fact that required declaration in the own handwriting of the candidate at the specified place was not written by the petitioner. It is also clear that the relevant part of the instruction which is both in Hindi and English mentions in comparatively larger font that the consequence of not filling up the declaration will be cancellation of candidature. 6. The substance of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there was a simultaneous responsibility cast upon the invigilators to see that the required particulars are filled up by the candidates before accepting their answer sheets. It appears that the invigilator did not do his duty properly and only because roll number of the petitioner was mentioned, he accepted the answer sheet. Such negligence on the part of the invigilator, in view - 4 - of the Annexure-8 containing directives for the invigilators, may be subjected to penalty or proceeding but that has no bearing upon the instruction no. 1(b) which requires cancellation of candidature in case of failing to fill up the declaration at the specified place in own handwriting of the candidate. 7. We are of the considered view that as a result of scrutiny the respondents were entitled to cancel the candidature of the petitioner and no fault can be found with the order of the learned Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed but without cost. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)