Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C. Girija vs Union Of India Represented By on 5 June, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 466 of 2009
Tuesday, this the 05th day of June, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
C. Girija,
W/o. P.V. Venugopal,
Office Superintendent Grade I,
Personnel Branch,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Residing at "Ashtapadi",
Vishnu Nagar, Puduppariyaram,
Palakkad : 678 733 ... Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr. Shafik M.A.)
v e r s u s
1. Union of India represented by
The Chairman, Railway Board,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Chennai.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Chennai.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Palghat.
5. Sri V. Srinivasan,
Assistant Personnel Officer.
Office of the Chief Electrical Workshop Engineer,
Southern Railway, Perambur.
6. Sri Nagayyasamy,
Assistant Personnel Officer,
Headquarters Office, Southern Railway,
Chennai.
7. Sri B. Murugesan,
Assistant Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum.
8. Sri M. Raman,
Assistant Personnel Officer,
Office of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Chennai.
9. Smt. Meena Bhaskar,
Assistant Personnel Officer,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai ... Respondents.
(By Advocate Mrs. Sumathi Dandapani (Senior) with
Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for R1-4,
Ms. Rekha Vasudevan for R-9)
The Original Application having been heard 28.05.2012, the Tribunal
on 05.06.12 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER This O.A. was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2011 as under:
"11. Annexure A-1 dated 27.12.2007 is quashed. The respondents are directed to include the applicant in Annexure A-2 panel on the basis of her qualifying marks and to promote her notionally with effect from the date the 9th respondent has been promoted to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer. The applicant should be placed above the 9th respondent in the seniority list of APO for the year 2001. The applicant should be given regular posting as APO within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 9th respondent who will be displaced from the Annexure A-2 panel should be adjusted against any vacancy that arose subsequent to Annexure A-2. The period from the date of promotion of the respondent No.9 in 2001 to the date her adjustment on a regular vacancy should be regularised and appropriate orders in this regard also should be issued within the time stipulated above."
2. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. (CAT) No. 925/2012 by the official respondents and in O.P.(CAT) No. 82/2012 by the party respondent. Hon'ble High Court of Kerala remanded the matter to this Tribunal vide judgement dated 02.04.2012 as under:
"6. Now adverting to paragraph 11 of the additional reply statement submitted by the establishment to the rejoinder specifically raises the plea that the applicant is a person participated in all selections and that she turns around to challenge the earlier selection having become unsuccessful in the later selections. In this context, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OP (CAT) No. 82 of 2012 that though Annexure A-2 was of the year 2001 and the rejection of the representation for enlargement of the panel was made in 2007, the original application was instituted only two years thereafter. She, in fact, opposes this Court making an order or remit to the Tribunal to reconsider the aforesaid aspects. It appears that her client is apprehending that the exercise would be a long drawn one and many closed issues would be attempted to be opened by recourse to proceedings seeking leave to amend the original application. We record this submission and leave it to the petitioner in OP (CAT) No. 82 of 2012 to raise all objections to any application for amendment, impleadment etc. if and when the applicant makes such a request before the Tribunal following this judgement. We also preserve the right of the Railway establishment to raise all such objections before the Tribunal. For the said reasons, we uphold the findings regarding Annexure A-1 to the limited extent it does not affect any person in Annexure A-2 list or any other person who has been brought into establishment against 30% quota in subsequent selections. Recording this, we make an otherwise open remand for consideration of issues that may be relevant. The parties are directed to mark their appearance before the Tribunal on 16.05.2012. At request of parties, we record that the learned Tribunal would consider expediting final disposal of the matter since the applicant has hardly three years of service left. The original petitions are ordered accordingly."
3. The matter was finally considered on 28.05.2012 by this Tribunal. The learned counsel for the parties were present. The applicant in this O.A. did not make any application for amendment, impleadment etc., as apprehended by the respondents. Therefore, opportunity for exercising the right of the respondents to raise objections against amendment of the Original Application did not arise.
4. The finding of this Tribunal regarding Annexure A-1 order dated 27.12.2007 was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala to the limited extent that it did not affect any person in Annexure A-2 list or any other person who had been brought into establishment against 30% quota in subsequent selections. The finding of this Tribunal, that the reservation of one post for SC category when there was required number of SC category already on the date of assessment of vacancies against 30% quota in the year 2001 is arbitrary and illegal is upheld. But the direction given to the respondents has to be moulded without affecting any person in Annexure A-2 list and others who have been promoted against 30% quota in subsequent selections. The applicant in this O.A. has been unjustly deprived of her promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in the year 2001 on account of a mistake committed by the respondents in appointing the respondent No.9 against excess SC quota. We have condoned the delay on the part of the applicant in filing this O.A on sufficient and justifiable grounds. Her participation in subsequent selection processes out of abundant caution and lack of correct information about filled up SC quota, cannot, in the facts and circumstances of this case, justify the mistake on the part of the respondents and take away her entitlement for promotion to the post of APO based on the selection process that culminated in the 2001 select list. More than 11 years have passed, it would not be fair to upset the settled position, but the ends of justice would be met if a supernumerary post of APO is created till the next vacancy in the general category arises in the 30% quota and the applicant is promoted against that post. She may be promoted notionally with effect from the date the 9th respondent had been promoted to the post of APO for the purpose of pay fixation benefits only. Salary of the post of APO should be paid to the applicant with effect from the date of assumption of the charge of APO. When a regular vacancy arises, the applicant should be adjusted against it. Ordered accordingly. A time limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is fixed for compliance of the order by the respondents.
4. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dated, the 05th June, 2012)
K. GEORGE JOSEPH JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
cvr.