Rejected over cut-off date, Jharkhand High Court asks Railways to take Army veteran on board

Concerning the other appointments made by the regional boards, the Jharkhand High Court, in its April 6 order, said, “If the classification is based upon rationality said to be reasonable, then Article 14 (right to equality) will not be of any aid, but certainly if the classification is unreasonable, then Article 14 will be of aid to the litigant concerned to protect his fundamental right.”

The order added that all the parameters of the appointments are required to be followed uniformly, and it cannot be allowed to be based on the region, as in the present case.

Background

The petitioner, Ravishankar Kumar, a former havildar in the Indian Army with over 16 years of service, had applied for an Non-Technical Popular Categories (NTPC) post. The recruitment notice, however, required defence personnel to be released on or before March 31, 2020, to qualify for the ex-servicemen category.

Due to service exigencies, the petitioner was discharged on April 30, 2020, exactly one month after the cut-off date. Although the Railway Board had briefly issued a letter on February 7, 2023, allowing for the empanelment of ex-servicemen relieved after the cut-off due to the pandemic, this directive was withdrawn two weeks later.

The CAT, Patna Bench (Circuit Bench at Ranchi), had dismissed the petitioner’s original application, labelling his claim as “devoid of merit” and suggesting he had made a “false statement” regarding his discharge date during the application process.

‘Article 14 forbids unreasonable classification’

The division bench noted that the tribunal failed to address a critical plea of hostile discrimination. The petitioner demonstrated that several candidates in the Guwahati and Bilaspur RRB, including one Mukesh Anand, had been appointed despite being discharged after the March 31, 2020, cut-off.

The Jharkhand High Court emphasised that Article 14 forbids unreasonable classification, and since the railway board is the nodal body for all regional boards, recruitment parameters must be applied uniformly across the country.

Court’s findings

• The case of the petitioner has been rejected for consideration under the category of ex-servicemen on the ground that he has not been separated from service of the armed forces by 31.03.2020, but rather on 30.04.2020.
• The candidature of the petitioner was orally rejected, which led him to approach the tribunal, the Jharkhand High Court noted.
• The said original application was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and pass a reasoned order.
• The reasoned order was passed on 22.03.2023, and again, the candidature of the petitioner to be considered under the category of ex-servicemen was rejected.
• The question of hostile discrimination was the specific issue raised before the tribunal, subjecting the petitioner to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Article 14 has two contexts, i.e., based on the classification. One is a reasonable classification, and the other is an unreasonable classification, the Jharkhand High Court stated.
• If the classification is based upon rationality, said to be reasonable, then Article 14 will not be of any aid, but certainly if the classification is unreasonable, then Article 14 will be of aid to the litigant concerned to protect his fundamental right.
• Article 14 prohibits discriminatory legislation against an individual or against a class of individual but it does not prohibit reasonable classification.