Praveen Mahajan ORDER
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was filed by the applicant on 8.3.2017 seeking the following reliefs:
"A) Call for the Records of the case from the respondents;
B) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to evaluate the answer sheet of the applicant and if secures marks more than the cut off marks for the OBC category he should be considered for appointment to any of Group D posts advertised in the said selection.
C) Grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant."
2. Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reply thereto.
3. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, and have heard Mr. P.S. Nerwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for deciding the controversy and are not disputed by either side are as follows:
4.1 In pursuance of the Employment Notification No. 220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2013 dated 30.12.2013, published in Employment News dated 11-17 January 2014, the recruitment process to fill up 5679 vacancies in Pay Band-I Rs. 5200-20200 + GP Rs. 1800/- Group 'D' posts was initiated by the respondents. Paragraphs 5 to 11 of the employment notification contained detailed instructions/information as to how to make application, mode of selection, general conditions, invalid application, misconduct, etc. Instruction No. 3, contained in the said notification, stipulated that an application will be strictly rejected if the same is signed in CAPITAL LETTER. Paragraph 10 of the said notification is to the following effect:
"10. INVALID APPLICATIONS:
Candidates are requested to read all instructions thoroughly before sending their applications. Otherwise their applications are likely to be rejected on one or more of the following reasons:
xx xx
10.7 Applications without signature or with signatures in capital letters or with different signature at different places.
xx xx"
Paragraph 8 of the notification contains the general conditions. Paragraph 8.5 stipulates that mere selection and empanelment does not confer any right of appointment to the candidates. Paragraph 8.6 stipulates that the admission of the candidate at all stages of recruitment will be purely provisional, subject to satisfying the prescribed conditions. The selection process consisted of written examination, followed by PET which was qualifying in nature only. Candidates equal to twice the number of vacancies were called for PET on the basis of merit in the written examination out of those whose candidatures were found fit as per the examination/recruitment conditions. This was followed by calling candidates, equal to number of vacancies, for document verification and medical examination on the basis of merit in the written examination subject to the condition that such candidates have to qualify the PET.
4.2 In response to the aforesaid employment notification, the applicant applied and offered his candidature as an OBC candidate. The applicant appeared in the written examination held on 3.11.2014. The applicant put different signatures both in English and Hindi on application form as compared to OMR sheet used during the written examination and that too in capital letters. The applicant's signatures were in different style and form on the application form initially submitted by him and on OMR sheet. Therefore, the applicant's candidature was rejected for his having violated the terms and conditions of the employment notification.
4.3 The result of the written examination was declared by the respondents in February 2015. As his name did not appear in the list of successful candida........