Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bikash Mitra vs Eastern Railway on 19 September, 2018
.. ---:- --- --*•-• --•
,
--
CENTRALADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
Original Application No.350/00 1 32/20 1 6
THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA.DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
THE HON'BLE DR (SMT) NANDITA CHATTERJEE, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Bikash Mitra
Son of Subrata Mitra
Aged aboUt3lye9iS
By professi6U] ' d -
At present riin*t
D e tcpur a rç\\
PIN 743248k
Applicant
-
Unionoflndiaf,', /
Through the è ai%g'
\Q
Eastern Railway, Farliê?PI.e
Calcutta-i.
-
Chief PersonneIOffii '1q
1:
Eastern
Calcutta-i. .--
Chairman
Ri1wqy Recritment Board/Kolkata
Metro Railway A.V. Complex, Chitpur
Opp. To R.G.Kar Medical College & Hospital
Kolkata-700 037. .
OA.350/00 132/2016
11.
To R.G.Kar Medical College & Hospital
KOlkata-700 037.
Respondents
For applicant (Adv): Mr.C.Sinha
For respondents (Adv): Mr.M:K.BandyOPadhYaY
Heard on: 21.03.2018 Date orOrder: \ . 9.2018
ORDER
MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J) tr
/
in thisIA edd rtiOfl 19 fe Administrative
It the9lwing relief(s) -
Tribunals Act,
l
a) To directe 4 respondents -4o consider the of marks/merit in the mai/2d<age) 9xan?ti9n as per CEN No.03/20 26urpIdwi'fh'the choic,eToption of posts as submitted'by'th bIidnt.. 7 /
b).. To d ett êpondent no.3 to of the applicant to the Eastern Railway in accordance marks/merit in the main (2nd stagë)• coupled with the choice/option" pf posts as submitted by the applicant IC for appointment.
c) Any Other order or order(s) as the Hon'ble TribunaI deems fit and proper.'
2. The facts, in brief, are that a Centralized Employment Notie bearing No.03/2012 dated 12.05.2012 was published by 2 QA.350/00 132/2016 I the Railway Recruitment Board inviting applications for filling up certain posts. Accordingly, being eligible, the applicant applied for seven numbers of posts. Call letter bearing Roll No.5071722 was issued to the applicant to appear in the preliminary examination (stage 1) for all notified categories. Having been successful in the preliminary examination (stage-i) applicant was issued call letter to appear in the 2nd stage i.e., main written examination for the categories of posts as specified in the said r ., . ..
nhenjn Written examination .
call letter. The appli ua
(2nd stage) euif 'eotification no
?ff1 re
çi jQi01 4 Wherein applicant
RRB/KOL/SC/RtWTl 3/Pf
(Roll No 507174gj ' no4 (hoods Guard)
/ -
His testimonials rvfIèn 04.O..201.\bJt was declared unfit
in A2 medical catego atta eJo-tf post of Goods Guard vide letter dated 02.07.2014. According to the applicant, though he applied for seve.n nuThber of posts, hewas not considered ~--( other posts. Applicant obfoined information under RTI Act that he scored 102.12 points in the main written examination (2nd stage) and one candidate - Moumita Ghosh bearing No.(9021934) who scored 96.09 marks in the said 2nd stage examination, found her name figured in the common waiting list of category nos.1, 2, 3 the post of ECRC. The grievance of the applicant is that despite scorihg 102.12 marks applicant has been considered for one post i.e., Goods Guard ignoring Vhis options for other five posts1 but Moumifa Ghosh, who scored less marks than the applicant, figured in common waiting list of four posts and subseqUentlY recommended for appointment for the post of ECRG. The presefltai9fl dated 26.12.2015 but to no applicant submitted re
- '_}••_ avaiL Hence this OA... -
V
I t
ft
• V I4J
theVir V ijten statement.
3 The esonden'g V
V
•V V
4) me'relantand importart conditions of
- -. ' They have referred to s 6 -
1 VAV the said Employment ,N I aSfldr:-.'2 / I \ 1, •VS_ V as 'C-l' for the "(A) of Goods Guard as post of per the said EmyrfleRtNbtice.
Para 8of the said Employment Notice indicates VMé\jal Fitness Test and V. the 'dails' b.outtë elaborates t-he .:..\/SjQfl standards for A-2 and C-i ' V categories Para 8 Note (iii) is reproduced below:-
'CandidCte5 qualifying in examination(s) for these post but tailing in prescribed medical examination(s) will not any case be considered for any alternative appointment."
Para 10.08 of the Employment Notice (page 15 of the instant OA is reproduced below:-
OA.350/00 132/2016 "All selected candidates will be subjected to medical examination by Railway Medical Authority at the time of appointment and only those conforming to the medical standards as laid down in the Indian Railway Medical Manual and other extant provisions, as the case may be, will be eligible for appointment. Selection does no.t imply appointment in Railways."
According to - the respondents, applicant indicated the post of Goods Guard and ECRC as 1st and 2nd preferences and Moumita Ghosh indicated the .post of Commercial Apprentice, Traffic Apprentice andEC respectively.
She did not mdi r peereicQrepost
r of Goods Guard.
,
As the vision hfoj-2:pndc'rnedalstandard5 are
V ?I
)lovrnentnotIce..,the applicnt is aware of elaborated in 1 the some bet or nittg his at 9 the time of 2nd stage of written stãt According to the respondents, on the basi rfornanee Ms. Moumita Ghosh was plaeed' in eGr1mGn .waitlist for the posts of Commercial Apprentice,.Jraffic Apprentice, ECRC and Goods Guard. It was also further stated that in fact. the wait list was made in excess of the actual vacancy to make good any shortfall. Her- ce the score of candidates figured in the wait list are obviously less than the candidates called and empanelled against actual vacancy. Subsequently, the Railway Board vide 5L S .
$.
. Q,A.350/0013212016 letter No.2012/E(RRB)/25/1 dated 10.10.2014 instructed that no candidate from wait list can be empanelled for the post of Commercial Apprentice and Traffic Apprentices therefore, Ms. Moumita Ghosh, and waitlisted candidate was considered for ECRC on the basis of merit and performance. Since the applicant scored higher marks he was considered and selected for actual vacancy for the post of Goods Guard on the basis of his • 1st preference. Ms. Moumita Ghosh bearing Roll No.9021934 (UR) pursuant to setttLo obtained 96.09 as normalised ma •s1s j listed and subsequently hNaS lfOLthe os of ECRC on 1809 2015 wnttnJstatement that c.:: .
there is no illegality itk ent-jre procss / fl
4. The applicant Referring to Note 8 (iii) of the advertisement; the , dliit, in'the rejoinder, stated that examination was conducted for post(s) and not for a single post and there are provision for medical examination(s) in accordance with medical standard for post(s). According to the applicant, applicant qualified in the written examination for the post of ECRC also coupled with 6 other post including Goods 6 OA.350/O0 132/2016 Guard as per his choice of preference of post. Thus, the applicant LI should have béén medically examined for the post of ECRC and having not done so, the applicant cannot be termed as unfit.
Mr.C.Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant
5.
submitted that Ms Moumita Ghosh, a wait listed candidate, who got lesser marks than the applicant, given her 3rd preference to 2nd preference of the applicant to the post of ECRC contrary to forthe post of ECRC ignoring said post, / 1ch reflbifrariè5Sd discrimination the criteria of met, / ofThe 14 and 16 of in the selec ior/ CeSS
-
the ConstitutlOfl oJ lndia7'f
6. 1M;K.Bqn,dypdhyaYi larned' counsel appearing for the Eastern Railway sbmiffed that since the applicant scored higher marks he was seieted agaiñt actual vacancy for the post of Goods Guard on the bais of is1 preference and since Ms. Moumita Ghosh obtained less marks she was placed in common wait list. Subsequently, she was empanelled for the post of ECRC from wait:list on the basis of her performance. As such, learned counsel claimed that there is no illegality in the matter. 7
7. We have 'heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials placed before us. The Centralised.EmP.lOYment Notice No.03/2012 prescribes as under:-
1) Stages of Exam:-
Common Preliminary Examination (i.e. stage I) for all the notified categories.
Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat No.1&2 - followed by Verification of documents. Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat No.3&4-folloWed by verificatiqn'fcJ4mpflt5.
- '•"
Mair1 (&econd siage) Eam for Cat No.5&6, .1 quaIifyrrgY . test / f®l.l.owed by• Verification of typi\ dociknets.
e )CatN 7&8, aptitude
2) Peliinaçy ajCflati9r i stage) 'will be held On
the same,d y all
' '12, /
3) Caidqes..-ShOuld (efer para 15 of General Instructions jorsJbmIssIoft. of single (i.e. common) application for Exam for all the notified categories to the concerned RRB. Candidates who qualify in the Preliminary (stage I) Exam will again have to apply separdtèly 'for' Main (second stage) Examination fornotified categories as Grouped in para 1.06(a)."
Clause 8 of the said Employment Notice No.03/2012 prescribes as under:-
'.MEDICAL FITNESS TEST: The candidates recommended for appointment will have to pass requisite medical 8 .. --...... .. -
fitness test(s) conducted by the Railway Administration to ensure that the candidates are medically fit to carry out the duties connected with the post. Visual Acuity Standard is one of the important criteria of medical fitness of railway staff. The medical requirements against different medical standards for different categories are outlined below:-
A-2. Physically fit in all respects. Visual Standards- Distance vision: 6/9, 6/9 without glasses. Near Vision Sn: 0.6, 0.6 without glasses and must pass test for Colour Vision, Binocular Vision, Field of Vision & Night Vision.
C-I. Physically fit in all respects. Visual Standards- Distance Vision: 6/12, 6/18 with or without glasses. Near Vision. Sn: 0.6, 0.6il ..r1wItlQut glasses when reading a11 or close woçlcyrequired"
I. .: ? 7'
J. .j- Ui ...-
\
Note: (i The iboe.me:u :astandards (Criteria) are
indiãdU fhaJstive band apply to
cardidates in', eneraluft,.. For Ex-Se.r'icemen & PWD
,' - wiIapply.
½.'
-( iii:) Candidates
différeHt st
quaifying Wiaio'n (ST for these p6st but failing in
p re s c'rJ b e.d,'p ical examindfibn(s) will not any case be considrëc for..ariy....aItérnatiye q'ppointment. (iv) Candiddt-es"w, 6 do; not:' fulfi .threscribed medical standards nee( hota p ply. "
8 The applitant in p.ür6:nce of CntraI Enployment Notice No.03/2012 applied for seven number of posts and he submitted his order of preference as under:-
Sl.No. I Posts Order of preference 01 Goods Guard One 02 ,ECRC Two 03 Sr. Clerk-curn-Typist Three 04 Cornrnerci.ql Apprentice . . Foir
-J / I' QA.350/00132/2016 1 '7 05 afficAssistOflt e.
Six P 6 07 Assistant Station Master Traffic A rentice Seven
9. Now, the question posed before us by the learned counsel for the applicant is that how one Ms. Moumita Ghosh, a wait listed candidate, who got lesser marks than the applicant with preference of ECRC as third contrary to applicant's second preference , is selected for the post of ECRC ignoring criteria on merit. , We ndte was selected I 10
- -
'- I c' ci
for the post ofE:d ye Pie M i-ui TII
whereas appli,Qt giv ;hi1p1 ence ôrjthe said post.
More so, learned cpi,nsejOr the applj,czanf\voClferously argued ' '--••- -. /I that Ms. Moumita\Qhoh'Who was select-ed against her 3rd preference got lesser r ksthd the applicant. The RTI information furnished on 7.11.2015 reveals that applicant bearing RoIl No.5071722 (UR) obtained 102.12 as normalised marks in the 2nd stage written examination of CEN-0312012. The total number of UR vacancy for the post of ECRC was as under:-
UR= 4, UR(OH)4, UR(HH)=3, UR(VH)=2 10
- --.--'----'-"-'-.- ., - . - .• -•- -••----•--
•- - ----,'-------
.•:
;. -----17
OA 350/00132/2016 The cut off marks for UR candidates for the posts of ECRC, Goods Guard, Senior Clerk-cum-Typist, Assistant Station Master, were 108.2, 92.41, 84.13 and 69.31 respectively. Undisputedly applicant in the 2nd stage Main examination secured 102.12 marks whereas Ms. Moumita Ghosh secured 96.09 marks. Moreover, Ms.Moumita Ghosh who was selected against her 3rd preference for the post of ECRC scored much below than the cut off marks for UR 6? candidate, i.e., 108.2 marks:'Acco.rding.fo the learned counsel for str q/ .
the applicant, medicaiexaminqtion is ciucted for post(s) and not for a prescribes different rnedicditahds forte. postfRC d Goods Guard. For the post ofECRC the'requisit medicaL standard is A-2 / .1 whereas for the\potJof Gpods Qurd'itts C-i. The requisite \N .' medical standards foi théA2snd C-i had aIrecidy been quoted ::. above. Thus, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the alicant is. hold good..
11. Secondly, if the wait listed candidate Ms. Moumfa Ghosh with 96.09 marks much less than the applicant's 102.12 marks can be consideredagainst her 3rd preference i.e., ECRC why the department ignored the case of the applicant for his preference by conducting his medical fitness test for the post of . ---
;7 OA.350I00132I20
/
ECRC. .Accordiflgly, the decision of the respondents in declaring the applicant unfit irrespective of any post is not acceptable. As such, we are of the view that applicant's candidature ought to have been considered by the railways as per his preference and the prescribed medical examination. Accordingly, the the candidature of the respondents are directed to consider in the main (2nd stage) applicant in order of marks/merit examination pursuant to CEN No. 03/2012 coupled with the XO 1 4/4 -
choice/option of p4tsS sub9Y tKcapplicaflt.
/; j% The AJ dispose'dôfaSiab0e'. Ther,e shall be no order 4-
12. '-
astocosts
/ -
* (MANJULA DAS)
(DR.NANDITA CHA1TERJEE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICAIL MEMBER
12