Failure to sign the CBT call-letter foil justifies rejection under prescribed recruitment conditions.

The applicant applied as a General-category candidate for Level-1 railway posts under C.E.N. No. 02/2018.

He cleared the computer-based test (CBT), Physical Efficiency Test and medical examination.

After document verification, however, his candidature was marked “Rejected” because he had not signed the RRB foil of his CBT call letter.

He sought quashing of the rejection and consideration for appointment according to his merit.

The respondents relied on the notification’s requirements concerning signatures, self-declaration and thumb impression, and maintained that the rejection followed those requirements

Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s candidature for failing to sign the RRB foil of the CBT call letter, despite his having qualified in the subsequent selection stages.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have the rejection set aside and to be considered for appointment under C.E.N. No. 02/2018.

C.E.N. No. 02/2018 required candidates to comply with the prescribed signature and examination-document requirements: paragraph 1.8 addressed the form and consistency of signatures, while paragraph 16.4 required candidates to complete the self-declaration, signature and left-thumb-impression formalities at the CBT venue.

Under Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaulla Khan, selection must follow the advertised procedure, and a condition cannot be relaxed unless relaxation is authorised and properly publicised.

Union of India v. Sarwan Ram recognised that the competent authority may reject an application that does not comply with the employment notice.

The Tribunal also followed the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Ramesh Kumar v. RRB, NWR through its Chairman, which upheld rejection under the same C.E.N. for non-compliance with the prescribed CBT call-letter formalities.

The Tribunal treated the case as one of non-compliance with an express procedural requirement, not an inadvertent factual error such as an incorrect date of birth supported by an authentic document; it therefore found the applicant’s cited authorities on factual errors inapplicable.

It considered the Rajasthan High Court’s later decision in Ramesh Kumar, concerning the same recruitment notification, controlling guidance over earlier decisions relied on by the applicant.

Because the notification prescribed the CBT formalities and did not provide for relaxation, the applicant’s success at later stages did not make the rejection unlawful.

It dismissed the application and denied the requested reliefs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.