Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vineet Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India : Through on 8 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A.No.431 of 2012 New Delhi, this the 08th Day of February, 2012 HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) Shri Vineet Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Age 26 years, R/o House NO.NC-124, Railway North Colony, Behind DRM Office, Moradabad (U.P.) ..Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Manjeet Singh Reen ) Versus Union of India : Through 1. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi. Respondent ORDER (ORAL)
The Applicants grievance in this Application is that his case for appointment on substitute basis in Group D post has not been considered by the respondent as per the Railway Boards Circular dated 17.9.2010. The Applicant has made a number of representations in this matter. Copies of three of such representations are at Annexures A/1, A/2 and A/5 respectively. Neither the case of the Applicant nor his representations had been referred to the Screening Committee by the respondent. At the same time, appointments were being to other persons similarly situated. The Applicants sole prayer is that at least his case be considered on merits along with other similarly situated officers and directions to this effect be issued to the respondent. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the case of Pawan Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others in OA No.1018/2011 and other connected OAs decided on 21.12.2011 wherein similar directions, as prayed herein have been issued. The Applicants counsel sates that for parity of reasons similar directions be issued in this case as well. In the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), 49 applicants joined together in OA No.1018/2011. This OA was disposed of vide common order along with OA No.1082/2011 and OA No.1136/2011 vide order dated 21.12.2011, copy of this order is at Annexure A/4. The relevant portion of this order reads as follows:-
3. The limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the applicants is that the case of the applicants should at least be considered. There could not be any objection to the only prayer made by the learned counsel during the course of hearing.
4. That being so, subject to the eligibility of the applicants, we direct the General Manager, Northern Railway, first respondent herein, to consider appointment of the applicants as Substitutes against limited vacancies in specified categories. We may mention at this stage that similar directions came to be issued by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.363/2006 decided on 22.02.2008 against which Writ Petition No. 4586/2008 came to be filed, which was dismissed, vide orders dated 20.04.2009.
5. Let the exercise, as ordained above be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. If the respondents may be of the view that the applicants are not entitled for appointment as Substitutes, a speaking order shall be passed. Original Applications bearing OA Nos.1018/2011, 1082/2011 and 1136/2011 stand disposed of accordingly.
2. For parity of reasons, this Application is also disposed of in above terms. Accordingly, I direct the respondent to consider the Applicant for appointment as substitute subject to his eligibility and inform the Applicant of his decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the respondent finds that the applicant is not entitled for appointment as substitute, he shall pass a speaking order stating the grounds on which he has arrived at such a finding.
3. Having regard to the nature and scope of the Applicants prayer, it has not been considered necessary for me to go into the merits of the case as the matter can appropriately be left for consideration of the respondent in accordance with the Railways own circular.
4. Accordingly the Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/