Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Mahavir Singh vs Union Of India & Others Through on 16 September, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A No.1244/2008 New Delhi, this the 16th day of September, 2008 HONBLE MR. SHANKER RAJU, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Shri Mahavir Singh S/o Shri Hari Chand, Aged about 56 years, R/o RZ-A, 29-E, Gali No.7, Prahalad Pur, New Delhi 110 045 Applicant (By Advocate:Ms Priyanka Bhardwaj, proxy for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) VERSUS Union of India & Others through 1. The General Manager, Ministry of Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The DRM, DRM Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi 3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, DRMs Office, New Delhi 4. Shri Kamal Kant, Section Engineer, TKD, N. Rly. New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Satpal Singh) O R D E R (Oral) By Shanker Raju, Member (A):
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The Applicant seeks promotion as Section Engineer for which the challenge has been made to the selections held in the years 2006 and 2007. Learned counsel contends that the applicant although had qualified in the selection test held in the year 2006, yet he has not been promoted thereby denying the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
3. On the other hand, respondents counsel opposing the contention of the applicants counsel, produced before us for our perusal the records pertaining to the selections held in the years 2006 and 2007. It is noticed that the applicant having failed to obtain a minimum of 30 marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregate in the selection held in 2006 could not be promoted. In the selection held in 2007, the applicant had not even qualified in the written test and failed to secure 60% aggregate as per the methodology and procedure laid down in Para 219 of IREM Vol. I.
4. In a selection post, on selection being carried out, a minimum of 60% of the aggregate and 60% marks in the written test is required for being placed on the panel. As the applicant has failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks on both the occasions, his candidature was rightly not considered for promotion as Section Engineer.
5. In the light of above, the O.A. is bereft of merit and accordingly dismissed.
(Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) /pkr/