Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Manoj Kumar vs M/O Railways on 9 January, 2024
1
OA No.192/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.192 of 2017
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2024
Reserved On:06.11.2023
Pronounced On: 09.01.2024
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. A.K.DUBEY, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
HON'BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Shri Manojkumar,
Son of Shri Ramruch Prasad Pal,
Age:45 years,
Working as Trackman,
Residing at Railway Quarter 946/C
East Yard, Western Railway Colony,
Valsad - 396 001.
2. Shri Premchand,
Son of Shri Jagdish Singh,
Age: 46 years,
Working as Trackman,
Residing at : Railway Quarter 946/B/2,
Western Railway Colony,
Valsad-396 001. .......Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S.Trivedi)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through
Chairman Railway Board through
Executive Director Estt. (N),
O/o. Executive Director,
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020.
3. The Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Western Railway, Parcel Depot,
Alibhai Premji Marg,
Grant Road (E),
Mumbai - 400 007.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
2
OA No.192/2017
O/o. DRM, Western Railway,
BCT Division,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020
.....Respondents
(By Advocate :Ms.Roopal R. Patel)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
1 By way of the present original application, the applicants are challenging the impugned action of the respondents in not including their names/numbers in the list dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1), even though they qualified the aptitude test held on 20th and 21st March, 2017. However, applicants were not called for document verification on 24th and 25th April, 2017 at RRC i.e., in the Office of respondent No.3.
2. As per the averments made in the original application, it was stated that in response to the notification issued by respondent No.3 on 15.01.2013, the applicants submitted their application for selection to the post of ASM/Guard against the GDCE Examination. No examination was held for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The notification was cancelled purely in the administrative interest by the respondents.
3. Thereafter, respondents had issued Notification No.1/2016 GDCE- Traffic Department-NTPC Graduate on 29.04.2016. At that time, the applicants were over aged and were not eligible to apply in response to the same. In fact, a reference was made by respondent No.2 to the Railway Board i.e., respondent No.1 vide letter No.E/R&T/890/0/Policy/Vol. VI dated 23.06.2016 requesting to give relaxation of the age limit to those candidates who responded to notification of the year 2013 as a special case.
4. As no decision was taken by the Railway Board i.e., respondent No.1 on said request, the applicants had approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.689/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure- A/2). It was stated that as per the decision of the Railway Board i.e., respondent No.3 communicated vide even number letter dated 07.10.2016 and 13.10.2016 referred in the said para 3 of the decision, the respondents were required to take the test/examination in view of the corrigendum notification 3 OA No.192/2017 for the years 2013 and 2016. Accordingly, a written test was held by respondent No.3 on 08.01.2017. The applicants had been allotted Roll No.220752 and 221049 respectively for the said test.
5. The result of said the written test was declared on 15.02.2017 wherein the applicants were successful. Thereafter, they were called for an aptitude test along with other candidates, on 20th and 21.03.2017. Although the applicants had appeared in the aptitude test and their performance was up to the marks, their names did not find a place in the list dated 31.03.2017 and in their contention, they were qualified for document verification on 24th & 25th April, 2017 at RRC i.e., in the office of respondent No.3.
6. Being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names/numbers in the list dated 31.03.2017 and document verification on 24th and 25th April, 2017 the present OA has been filed on the ground that although their performance was extraordinary and they passed the written test as well as the aptitude test, their names did not find place in the list dated 31.03.2017, which is ex facie, illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
7. It was contended by the respondents that for the preparation of merit, para 2 of the notification dated 31.03.2017 mentions about awarding 70% weightage to marks in written examination and 30% weightage to marks secured in the aptitude test, whereas there is no such notification of the Railway Board. It was also contended that applicants were eligible for vacancy notified in the year 2013 for which separate examination had to be taken in comparison to inclusion of the names of applicants in the list dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1).
8. The official respondents after notice filed their reply and justified the action by submitting the following stand:-
i) Respondent No.2 vide Notification No.E(R&T) 890/0/GDCE/Traffic & Commercial/20 12-13 dated 15.01.2013 had notified for filling up 25% of vacancies against Direct Recruitment of Traffic & Commercial Departments under General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE), as per the Railway Board's Instructions for the posts of (a) Goods Guard [24 vacancies]
(b) Probationary Assistant Station Master [58 vacancies] and (c) Ticket Examiner [21 vacancies]. Other terms and conditions pertaining to the 4 OA No.192/2017 educational qualification, age limit etc. were also notified in the said Notification. The last date for submission of application by the employees in their respective division/workshop unit was on 28.02.2013.
ii) Meanwhile, the Railway Board vide letter No.E(NG) I-2008/PMI/6 dated 20.10.2014 had decided that henceforth, the date for GDCE Exam would be fixed by Railway Recruitment Cells (RRCs) of the Railways.
Consequently, all the applications of Railway Employees which were submitted to the Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedabad were sent to the Railway Recruitment Cell, Western Railway, Mumbai, through Senior Personnel Officer (Recruitment & Training), Churchgate (SPO [R&T]-CCG).
iii) However, the said Notification No.1/2012-13 dated 15.01.2013 for the posts of ASM (58 vacancies) and goods Guards (24 vacancies) was cancelled vide SPO (R&T)'s letter No.E(R&T) 890/0/Policy Vol.VI dated 31.03.2016. In terms of Railway Board's letter No.E(NG)I-2008/PM1/6 Part dated 07.10.2016 circulated under GM(E)-CCG vide letter No.E(Rectt)890/0/Policy/Vol VI dated 13.10.2016, revived the GDCE Notification No.1/2012-13. Thereafter, the OMR-based written examination for the posts of ASMs and Goods Guards was held on 08.01.2017 at Mumbai.
9. The provisional result of the written examination against GDCE Notification No.1/2012-13 for ASMs was declared on 15.02.2017 wherein 464 candidates (eight times of the number of vacancies) qualified for the Aptitude Test. The Aptitude Test was conducted on 20.03.2017 and 21.03.2017. The provisional result of the Aptitude Test was declared on 31.03.2017 wherein 58 candidates from the regular list and 30 candidates from the additional list qualified for document verification. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R/6 is a copy of the said provisional result to qualify for the Aptitude test. Document verification was held on 24.04.2017 & 25.04.2017. Provisional Panel Part-I of ASMs against GDCE notification No.1/2012-13 was declared on 27.04.2017 and accordingly, 51 candidates for the post of ASMs were empanelled.
10. It was specifically submitted that since both the applicants had qualified in the aptitude test and secured less marks than the cut off marks in the OBC category, they could not be empanelled. The results of the applicants were 5 OA No.192/2017 mentioned in tabular form in reply. It was also submitted that letter dated 23.06.2016 (Annexure-R/8) clearly showed that since no examination could be conducted after January 2013 for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the fact that notification had been cancelled purely in the administrative interest seeing the long dead time which would have been consumed, to fill up only 58 posts of ASM and 24 posts of Goods Guard, the Railway Board was requested to give relaxation of age limit to these candidates as a special case and thereafter, the applicants participated in the selection process. Further, the respondents have placed on record, a notification dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure-R/9) wherein its Clause 8 has categorically stipulated that "this is only a provisional panel (Not the Final Panel) and does not confer upon the candidates any right for appointment in Railway service."
11. Thereafter, a rejoinder had been filed by the applicants reiterating the stand with a clarification that it was for the respondents to take examination first who had applied in response to the notification dated 15.01.2013 for the post of ASM/Goods Guards. As per RRB/2003/25/7 dated 04.06.2003 referred in the same, 70% weightage is to be given to marks obtained in written test, meaning thereby prior to 2016 i.e., new/change policy for the vacancy of year 2013 written test was there which is not done in the present case. It is the deviation from old policy particulars, which is not permissible. It was further submitted that in fact sub para (iii) of Annexure R/7 makes it amply clear that requirement of aptitude test is only in respect of certain categories but for the post of goods guard there is no requirement of aptitude test.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that although applicants were qualified in the aptitude test held on 20th and 21st March, 2017, their names were not included in the list dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1) for document verification on 24th and 25th April, 2017. It is contended that the non-inclusion of the applicants in the list dated 31.03.2017 is illegal and arbitrary. It was further contended that para 2 of the notification dated 31.03.2017 is illegal and arbitrary. It was further contended that para 2 of the notification dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1) mentions about 70% 6 OA No.192/2017 weightage of marks secured in written examination and 30% weightage of marks secured in aptitude test. As per the Railway Board, no such instructions are available.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action and submitted that the applicants secured less marks than the cut-off marks and therefore their names have not been empanelled. Therefore, on the basis of the reply, it was contended that the original application is liable to be rejected.
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputedly clear that an earlier notification dated 15.01.2013 was issued for filling up of 25% of vacancies against direct recruitment of the Traffic and Commercial Departments under the General Department Competitive Examination (GDCE), as per the Railway Board's notification for the post of (a) Goods Guard 24 vacancies, (b) Prob. Assistant Station Master 58 vacancies. However, the said notification dated 15.01.2013 was cancelled and in terms of the Railway Board's letter dated 13.10.2016, the GDCE notification No.1/2013 was revived. Thereafter, an OMR based written examination for the post of ASM/Goods Guard was held on 08.01.2017 at Mumbai. Result of the written test was declared on 15.02.2017. In this, the applicants were declared successful and were called for an aptitude test on 20th and 21st March, 2017. Applicants had appeared in the competitive test. However, the list dated 31.03.2017 was issued for document verification, in which the names of the applicants were not found.
16. Looking at the reply, it is clear that since applicants have not acquired the cut-off marks in the stipulated test, the list dated 31.03.2017 did not include their names and they were not empanelled. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the applicants, meaning thereby it is clear that the applicant could not acquire the cut-off marks. So far as the contention of the applicant is concerned, the weightage marks shown in the notification dated 31.03.2017 (Annexure-A/1) in para 2 of the notification were not as per the Railway Board's notification and was not as per the condition in the year 2013 and therefore, according to the applicant, the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is to be noted that the applicants are not disputing participation in the selection process till calling for aptitude test but raised question only 7 OA No.192/2017 when they were not called for document verification. It is settled position of law that a candidate who participates in the selection process and remains unsuccessful, cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process subsequently. It is apt to mention the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. reported in [(2023) SCC On Line SC 344] paragraph No.69 of which is reproduced herein below:-
"It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."
Therefore the contentions raised by the applicants are not tenable.
17. Looking at attendance slip (Annexure-A/3), it is clear that the applicants who have participated for the post of Assistant Station Master and all the notification/letters on record are with respect to the post of ASM. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that there is no question of aptitude test as far as the goods guard category is concerned cannot be considered at this stage. Firstly, applicants have participated for the post of ASM. Secondly, the notification dated 04.06.2003 (Annexure-R/3) clearly prescribed about the aptitude test for the post of ASM. Under these circumstances, applicants are not entitled to any relief. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the original application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
(UMESH GAJANKUSH) (A.K.DUBEY) Judicial Member Administrative Member SKV