# Ravi Shanker Maurya v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1225
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 48893 of 2017
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-shanker-maurya-v-union-of-india-ors-49842
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Ajai Singh, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai

Service Matter - Railways - Recruitment -
Group-D
(Class-IV
Employees)
-
A hyper-technical approach in rejecting a
candidate's candidature due to minor
mistakes in filling out an OMR sheet
during the examination for a Class-IV
(Group-D)
post
is
unwarranted.
Petitioner,
having
qualified
both
the
written and physical tests, was not called
for medical examination and document
verification
because
the
petitioner
reproduced the stipulation of Column
No.10
of
OMR
sheet
instead
of
reproducing the declaration made at first
page of booklet. The Court held that there
was no allegation of different handwriting
or use of any unfair means. Rejection of
the
petitioner's
candidature
by
the
Railway authorities was arbitrary and
hyper-technical. The petition was allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Ravi Shanker Maurya Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1225
be filed by a minor in order to avoid the
transaction within the period prescribed
under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The
High Court did not consider the issue of
limitation at all in view of its finding on the
effect of a violation of Section 8(2) of the
Act. As the conclusion of the High Court on
this aspect of the matter is unsustainable,
the impugned decision must be set aside."

13. In view of the law settled as
aforesaid, the sale deed dated 18.2.1963 at
best is a voidable document at the option of
the minors, as the minors may or may not
challenge the same. As per the law settled
by the Full Bench of this court in the case
of Ram Padarath (supra), Civil Court's
jurisdiction is ousted and Revenue Court
will have exclusive jurisdiction to decide
the title of a person over an agricultural
property only when the Revenue Court can
ignore a void ab initio document and
proceed to grant reliefs. The same principle
was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in
the cases of Shri Ram (supra) and
Narendra
Kumar
Mittal
(supra).
Paragraph 7 of the judgment in Ram
Padarath (supra) reads:

"7. So far as voidable documents like
those obtained by practising coercion,
fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence
etc., are concerned, their legal effect
cannot be put to an end without its
cancellation. But a void document is not
required to be cancelled necessarily. Its
legal effect if any can be put to an end to by
declaring it to be void and granting some
other relief instead of cancelling it. Once it
is held to be void it can be ignored by any
court or authority being of no legal effect
or consequence. A document executed
without free consent or one which is
without consideration or the object of
which is unlawful or executed by a person
not competent to contract like a minor or in
excess of authority would be a void
document. In case it is in excess of
authority it would be void to that extent
only.
There
is
presumption
of
due
registration of a document and correctness
of the facts mentioned in the same, but the
said presumption is not conclusive and be
dislodged."

14. In the present case, since the
document could not be ignored by the
Revenue Court and it needs to be
challenged before its effect could be
nullified, therefore, the Civil Court alone
had jurisdiction to decide the case. The sale
deed dated 18.2.1963, till it is challenged
by minors, stands valid and in the said
circumstances, the Revenue Court cannot
give any declaration against it. Thus, it is
only the Civil Court which is having
jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed and
decide the suit. There is no illegality in the
judgment and decree passed by both the
courts.

15. The second appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 48893 of 2017

Ravi Shanker Maurya ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ajai Singh, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai

Service Matter - Railways - Recruitment -
Group-D
(Class-IV
Employees)
-
A hyper-technical approach in rejecting a
candidate's candidature due to minor
mistakes in filling out an OMR sheet
during the examination for a Class-IV
(Group-D)
post
is
unwarranted.
Petitioner,
having
qualified
both
the
written and physical tests, was not called
for medical examination and document
verification
because
the
petitioner
reproduced the stipulation of Column
No.10
of
OMR
sheet
instead
of
reproducing the declaration made at first
page of booklet. The Court held that there
was no allegation of different handwriting
or use of any unfair means. Rejection of
the
petitioner's
candidature
by
the
Railway authorities was arbitrary and
hyper-technical. The petition was allowed.

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pitta Naveen Kumar & ors. Vs Raja Narasaiah
Zangiti & ors., (2006) 10 SCC 261

2. Karnataka Public Service Commission & ors.
Vs B.M. Vijaya Shankar & ors., 1992 (2) SCC
206

3. Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs U.O.I., W.P. (C) 11642
of 2016, dated 23.12.2016

4. State Bank of India & ors. Vs Palak Modi &
anr., (2013) 3 SCC 607

5. Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs U.O.I. & ors., O.A. No.
330/00105/2017, dated 10.4.2017

6. Hanuman Dutt Shukla & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2018) 16 SCC 447

7. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Sunil Kumar, 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 4637
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth
Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the Railways
and perused the record.

2. By way of the present writ petition,
the petitioner has challenged the judgement
dated 11.8.2017, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''C.A.T.')
in Original Application No. 101 of 2016 by
which the application of the petitioner against
cancellation of his candidature was rejected.

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner, contended
that the order impugned is absolutely
erroneous and arbitrary. The factual matrix of
this case is as below:-

(i) The Railway Recruitment Cell,
North-Central Railway, Allahabad issued an
employment notice No. 1 of 2013, whereby
applications were invited for filling up
several categories of Class-IV post in
Railways.

(ii) The petitioner also submitted
his
application
in
pursuance
of
this
employment notice and he was also allotted
Roll Number as 1210118369. The petitioner,
after appearing in written test, was declared
successful and thereafter he also qualified
physical efficiency test held on 10.3.2015.
Thereafter, the petitioner was not called for
medical test and no reason was given to the
petitioner even in reply to his application
under Right to Information Act, therefore, the
petitioner filed Original Application No. 101
of 2016 before the C.A.T.
4 All. Ravi Shanker Maurya Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1227

(iii) In reply to the above original
application, the Railways had filed a short
reply and in paragraph No.6 of the said
short reply, it was stated by the Railways
that the petitioner had filled up declaration
column in OMR sheet wrongly which
amounted to concealment of his identity in
examination
and
constituting
an
infringement of prescribed instructions,
therefore, for this reason the petitioner was
not called for medical examination as well
as for verification of his documents. The
Railways along with its reply also brought
on record a copy of the application form,
submitted by the petitioner, as well as
photocopy of OMR sheet of the petitioner.

(iv)
After
considering
the
aforesaid pleadings, the C.A.T. rejected the
original application of the petitioner by
order dated 11.8.2017 on the ground that in
the OMR sheet there was specific direction
which is being reproduced below:-

"Copy of the Declaration given in
First page of your Question Booklet in the
space given in the OMR answer sheet. Your
candidature shall be cancelled if you do not
copy the Declaration. You must put your
signature on OMR sheet at item no.13."

And the petitioner failed to
comply with the aforesaid direction,
therefore, his candidature was rightly
rejected as the above condition was not
directory but mandatory.

4. Learned Senior Counsel on the
behalf of the petitioner contended that
though in Column No.10 of OMR sheet,
it is mentioned "In your own running
handwriting reproduce the Declaration
as given in first page of the question
booklet in the space given below either in
Hindi or in English.", the aforesaid
stipulation in itself is quite misleading,
therefore,
the
petitioner
mistakenly
reproduced
the
same
stipulation
as
mentioned in Column No. 10 of OMR
sheet
instead
of
reproducing
the
declaration mentioned on the first page of
question
booklet.
It
was
further
contended by learned Senior Counsel that
the purpose of the stipulation in Column
No.10 of OMR sheet is to preclude
imposter from appearing in examination
in place of the candidate and apart from
the aforesaid, there exists no other
purpose of the declaration because the
petitioner has already mentioned the
above declaration in his application form
and there is no allegation against the
petitioner that the handwriting used in the
Column No.10 of OMR sheet is different
from the handwriting made in the
declaration made in Para-22 of the
application form, therefore, approach of
the Railways Authority, rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner, is hypertechnical and arbitrary.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
for
the
Railways,
Sri
Ajay
Singh,
contended that there is specific provision in
the employment notice No. 1 of 2013 that
incorrect
information
will
lead
to
cancellation of the candidature/appointment
and direction in OMR sheet regarding
reproduction of declaration mentioned on
the first page of question booklet in his
own handwriting is mandatory in nature
and violation of the same will technically
result cancellation of candidature of the
petitioner. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the Railways relied
upon the judgement titled as Pitta Naveen
Kumar and others vs. Raja Narasaiah
Zangiti & Ors., reported in (2006) 10 SCC
261 as well as one of the judgements of the
Apex Court titled as Karnataka Public
Service Commission and others vs. B.M.
Vijaya Shankar and others reported in
1992 (2) SCC 206.
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. We have considered the rival
contention of the parties as well as
judgement relied upon by the respondentRailways.

7.

From
the
Instruction-9
of
employment notice No.1 of 2013 dated
27.7.2013, it is clear that if the candidate
declared incorrect information in his
declaration at Column No. 22 then his
candidature/appointment is liable to be
cancelled. In the aforesaid notification,
there was no direction regarding filling of
OMR sheet. On perusal of application form
(annexed at page-58 of the writ petition), it
shows that the petitioner made declaration
in Column No.22 in the aforementioned
form and there is no dispute that any
concealment or incorrect information was
made in the aforesaid declaration of
application form. Perusal of the OMR sheet
(annexed at Page-60 of the writ petition)
shows that the petitioner, instead of
reproducing the declaration made at the
first page of the booklet in pursuance of
stipulation in Column-10 of OMR sheet,
reiterated the aforesaid stipulation in his
own handwriting and there is no dispute
that this reiteration in Column No. 10 of
OMR sheet is made by any other person
except the petitioner.

8. So far as the judgements relied
upon by the Railways is concerned, the
same are not applicable in the present case,
having different issue therein. As in the
judgement of Pitta Naveen Kumar and
others (supra), there was an issue of age
relaxation. Though there was no provision
for the same, therefore, for the aforesaid
issue the Hon'ble Apex Court made
observation that strict adherence to the
rules necessary when rules operate only to
disadvantage of the candidate concerned
not otherwise. In the present case the issue
is totally different i.e. reproducing the
declaration made at the first page of
booklet in Column No.10 of OMR sheet.
So far as the judgement of Karnataka
Public Service Commission and others
(supra) is concerned, the same is relating
to violation of instructions issued by the
Commission by mentioning roll number by
the candidate not only in the space
provided there on the cover page of the
answer book but also on all the pages
inside the answer book, contrary to clear
instructions. This judgement is also quite
distinguishable because the same is also not
applicable
in
the
present
facts
and
circumstances.

9. We have also gone through Para-6
of the procedure regarding recruitment of
Group-D (Class-IV employees) for the
recruitment by the Railways (annexed by
the petitioner at page-49 of writ petition).
Para-6 of the aforesaid procedure provides
that minimum educational qualification for
Class-IV employee is only to read and
write in any language, meaning thereby, he
should be literate. Therefore, standard of
care and precaution on the part of the
candidate, applying for Class-IV post,
cannot be equated with the candidate
applying for other posts for which educated
person is required.

10. In the judgements titled as Ajay
Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India in
W.P. (C) 11642 of 2016 and C.M. No.
45868 of 2016 decided on 23.12.2016,
State Bank of India and other vs. Palak
Modi and another with State Bank of
India and another vs. Minshu Saxena and
another, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 607 and
Vivek Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India
and others (O.A. No. 330/00105/2017)
decided on 10.4.2017, the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as High Court clearly held
4 All. Ravi Shanker Maurya Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1229
that for rejecting the candidature of a
selected candidate hyper-technical view
should
not
be
taken.
Similarly
in
paragraph-7 of the judgement in Hanuman
Dutt Shukla and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and other reported in (2018) 16
SCC 447 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-

" It is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao,
learned Senior Counsel and other learned
Senior Counsel/counsel appearing for the
parties that as per the Recruitment Rules
framed by the State Government to appoint
the eligible candidates to the posts,
referred to supra, there is no prohibition to
disentitle a candidate from evaluating the
answer sheets, who used whitener or blade
in the relevant blocks in the OMR sheet
(answer sheet). The said advisory note
given by the Selection Board cannot be
treated as a rule to declare such candidates
who have used whitener or blade in the
relevant blocks in the OMR/answer sheet
as ineligible for evaluating their answer
sheets. This statement is in conformity with
the Recruitment Rules and it would further
support the sand taken by the learned
Advocate
General,
representing
the
respondent State of U.P. in making
submission
on
the
basis
of
written
suggestions."

11. Paragraphs 14 & 15 of the
judgement titled as Union of India and
others vs. Sunil Kumar reported in 2021
SCC OnLine Del 4637 are quoted
hereinbelow:-

"14. We are in agreement with
the learned CAT because if we see the
Hindi signatures of the respondent, they
are exactly the same on the application
form as well as on the OMR Sheet.
Pertinently,
the
petitioners
have
not
disputed the thumb impression of the
respondent on the application form and the
OMR
Sheet.
It
is
not
a
case
of
impersonation. The only dispute raised by
the petitioners, which is the ground for
rejection
of
the
candidature
of
the
respondent, is that his signatures on the
application form in English do not tally
with his signatures on the OMR sheet in
English.

15. It is to be noted here that the
OMR sheet in the box provided for
signatures in English, specifically provides
that "NOT in Capital Letters". It is also to
be kept in mind that the respondent was
appearing for a ''Group D' post of Khallasi
and his knowledge of English cannot be
presumed to be as proficient as a man of
letters. The first impression, which one gets
after reading the instruction in box no. 7 on
the OMR sheet at the place where the
candidate has to sign, is that the capital
letters are not to be used while signing in
English. The respondent attempted to
follow the said instruction by apparently
refraining from using capital letters in his
signatures as he had earlier used while
signing on the application form."

12. In above mentioned cases,
Hon'ble Apex Court held that minor
mistake in filling OMR sheet in the
examination or Class-IV employee cannot
be a ground to reject his candidature, but in
the present case, though there was no
allegation by the Railways that the
petitioner was involved in using any unfair
means or any type of interpolation, but
merely on the ground that the petitioner
reproduced the stipulation of Column
No.10
of
OMR
sheet
instead
of
reproducing the declaration made at first
page of booklet in compliance of aforesaid
stipulation, rejection of the candidature of
the petitioner is absolutely arbitrary and
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
erroneous on the basis of hyper-technical
view. It is also not the case of the petitioner
that petitioner is ineligible in any manner
for Class-IV post and also this fact is not in
dispute that the petitioner has qualified
written examination as well as physical test
which is necessary requirement for the
selection of a Class-IV employee

13. Therefore, we are of the view that
the C.A.T. ignored the aforesaid aspect and
rejected the original application of the
petitioner by adopting the hyper-technical
view,
regarding
non-reproduction
of
declaration made on the first page of
booklet in Column No.10 of OMR sheet.

14. Therefore, the judgement dated
11.8.2017, passed by the C.A.T. in Original
Application No. 101 of 2016 is quashed
and respondents are directed to conduct the
medical examination of the petitioner and
verify his documents and issue appointment
letter if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.
It is also directed that if all posts have been
filled up despite pendency of litigation,
then
the
Railways
will
create
supernumerary post for the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed.

16. The aforesaid exercise is to be
done by the Railways within a period of 3
months from the date of receiving certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1230
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
First Appeal From Order No. 16 of 1995

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Tripathi & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K.S. Amist

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri T.P. Srivastava, Sri Ajay Misra, Sri Durga
Shanker Shukla, Sri Mahesh Dwivedi, Sri S.K.
Verma, Sri Ram Singh

Accident - Electrocution - Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, S. 165 - Claim for compensation
concerning death arising from the use of a
motor vehicle - The term accident is not
defined under the Motor Vehicles Act -
Incident
occurred
when
a
truck,
overloaded and driven at excessive speed,
came into contact with an electric wire,
resulting in a high voltage surge through
the village, leading to the electrocution of
the claimant's wife - Despite the vehicle
being overloaded, the driver failed to stop
- Held: Court rejected the appellant's
(Insurance
Company)
contention
regarding remoteness of damage and
concluded that the accident was caused
by the negligent use of the vehicle -
Insurance Company was held liable to
compensate the claimant but was granted
the right to recover the amount from the
vehicle owner due to the owner's failure
to produce evidence of the driver's valid
license. (Para 9, 10)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pappu & ors. Vs Vinod Kumar Lamba & ors.
AIR 2018 SC 592

2. Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs Vasschala Uttam
More, 1991 0 Supreme SC 322

3. Kalim Khan & ors. Vs Fimidabee & ors., 2018
LawSuit (SC) 571