Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manak Chand vs Union Of India Through The on 16 December, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1852/2013
MA-1486/2013
With
OA-3181/2013
Reserved on : 15.12.2014.
Pronounced on :16.12.2014.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
OA-1852/2013
1. Manak Chand,
S/o late Sh. Ram Chander,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in ANM Cell, N. Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Vijay Kumar,
S/o late Sh. Ramji Lal,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in CCM/Refund,IInd Floor,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Avdesh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Shiv Naryan,
Working as GroupD Staff,
Posted in Law Branch, N. RlyHQ,
Baroda House, N ew Delhi.
4. Arun Yadav,
S/o Sh. S.L. Yadav,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Medical Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
5. Harish Mohan Pant,
S/o Sh. Ram Nand Pant,
Working as GroupD Staff,
Posted in Law Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
6. Vijay Kumar,
S/o late Sh. Deep Chand,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Medical Branch, N.Rly. HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
7. R.L. Meena
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Meena,
Working as GroupD Staff,
Posted in Vig. Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
8. Parmod Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. Jai Lal Sharma,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in G Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
9. Harshwardhan,
S/o Sh. Jeet Singh Negi,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in OPTG Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
10. Ms. Neetu Joshi,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Health Unit Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
11. Kamal Jeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Man Singh.
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in IOW(G)Band, N. Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
12. Ms. Suman Lata Rawat,
W/o Sh. K.S. Rawat,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in General Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
13. Anil Tokas,
S/o late Sh. Narain Singh,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Store Branch, N.Rly. HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
14. Ms. Madhu Rani,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Works Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
15. Tilak Raj,
S/o Sh. Attma Ram,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Elect. Branch, N. Rly.HQ.,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
16. Vinod Kumar,
S/o late Sh. Satya Narayan,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in Elect. Branch, N.Rly.HQ,
Baroda house, New Delhi.
17. Alok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kishan Mohan,
Working as Group D Staff,
Posted in SSE(G) Office, N.Rly.,HQ,
Baroda House, New Delhi. .. Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the
General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Chief Personnel Officer,
Nothern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Advocate)
OA-3181/2013
1. Harinder Singh,
S/o sh. Dev Singh,
R/o KS No.51/4, A-Block,
Pradhan Enclave, Bureri,
Delhi-84.
2. Mast Ram Bhatt,
S/o late Sh. Gangadhar Prasad Bhatt,
R/o D-291B, Lajpat Nagar,
Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad(UP).
3. Ramesh Chand,
S/o Sh. Chetram,
R/o Gali No. 11A, H.No.3/26A,
Gangotri Vihar, Bhajanpura,
Delhi.
4. Mamta Khungwal
D/o Sh. Satish Chand,
R/o RZ 442, B/3, Raj Nagar-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
5. Jayanand,
S/o Sh. Rudri Dutt,
R/o D-90B, Shyam Park Extn.,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad(UP). .. Applicants
(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through the
General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Chief Personnel Officer,
Nothern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) These two OAs are identical and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts of OA-1852/2013 are being discussed.
2. The applicants are working as Group-D employees in Northern Railway. According to them in Railway department there is 50% promotion quota for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist from Group-D employees. This 50% is distributed into two categories with 16.67% being for those Group-D employees who have Matric qualification with two years service and 33.33% being for those Group-D employees who have three years service with 8th pass qualification. The respondents decided to conduct selection for both the quotas vide their order dated April, 2012. In that they asked for applications for 13 posts under the 33.33% quota and 08 posts under the 16.67% quota. On 13.08.2012, the respondents issued a list of eligible candidates for both the quotas. The written test was conducted on 15.09.2012 for 16.67% quota and on 22.09.2012 for 33.33% quota. The results were declared on 03.10.2012 and 04.10.2012 respectively. After declaration of the result vigilance clearance and working reports of all the candidates were called for for issuing the final panel. The respondents thereafter declared the panel for 16.67% quota and promoted those who had been selected. They, however, did not proceed further for preparation of panel under the 33.33% quota. The applicants, whose names figured in the list of selected candidates, submitted joint representation on 08.01.2013 requesting for declaration of final panel. On 10.05.2013, the respondents passed the impugned order by which they cancelled the aforesaid selection. Since no reasons were given in the same, the applicants submitted a detailed representation on 16.05.2013 but did not receive any reply though verbally they were told that the selection has been cancelled due to wrong calculation of vacancies. After a gap of 08 months, the respondents proposed to hold afresh selection under this quota. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the applicants have filed this O.A. before us.
3. The contention of the applicants is that the cancellation of the selection by the respondents without assigning any reason was unjustified and liable to be quashed. They have alleged that this selection has been cancelled on a complaint made by unsuccessful candidates. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Pati Nagaraja and Ors. Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., JT 2007(12)SC 407 they have stated that such candidates who had taken the exam cannot later on turn around and challenge the same. Further, the applicants have submitted that as per Para-219(K) of the IREM Vol.I if the competent authority does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Board the matter needs to be referred to the General Manager. Since this was not done, the order is illegal and without any jurisdiction. In this regard, the applicants have relied on judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Brijesh Kumar Srivastava & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2003(3) STJ 70. Further, relying on the same judgment they have stated that even if there were minor mistakes in the conduct of the exam, that could not have been a ground for cancellation of the entire selection.
4. In their reply, the respondents have admitted that they had commenced selection for Group-C post under promotion quota of Group-D employees both under the 33.33% as well as 66.67% quota. However, before the provisional panel could be issued some discrepancies were noted in the calculation of vacancies under the 33.33% quota and therefore this selection was cancelled.
5. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, the respondents have cancelled the written test conducted by them under the 33.33% quota on flimsy grounds. Nothing prevented them from re-calculating the vacancies arising in this quota even if some discrepancies had been noticed in earlier calculations. They could have proceeded with the selection and filled up the vacancies as per revised calculation. There was no justifiable reason for canceling the selection itself. The selection should have been cancelled only as a last resort if some gross irregularities had come to notice vitiating the entire selection process. In the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2571 Honble Supreme Court has laid down certain para meters for deciding when the selection process deserves to be cancelled. This could have been done only when the irregularities noticed were of such large scale that it would not have been possible to separate the tainted candidates from the innocent ones. In the instant case, no irregularities came to notice. The exam was cancelled only when there was some discrepancy in calculation which could not have been easily rectified.
6. The respondents counsel had argued that since no panel was prepared or published the applicants herein had no right to be appointed. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvind Kumar Rai and Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 611. However, we fail to see the relevance of this citation. While the applicants may not have any right to be placed in the panel, the action of the respondents in canceling the selection process cannot be justified.
7. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the applicants. Accordingly, we allow this O.A. and quash the order dated 10.05.2013 by which the selection under the 33.33% quota was cancelled. We further direct the respondents to prepare the panel from the candidates who had been selected in the written test and thereafter promote them as per Rules. The applicants if finally selected, they shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority. This exercise will be completed within a period of eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/