Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs N.Rajagopala Panicker on 13 November, 2008
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14513 of 2005(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO
... Petitioner
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
Vs
1. N.RAJAGOPALA PANICKER,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
For Respondent :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.14513 OF 2008 S
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.1046/2001. The first respondent was the applicant. The applicant was working as Section Controller under the Palakkad Division of the Southern Railways from 15.3.1999. He was promoted to that post from the feeder category of Yard Master. Later, seeking regular promotion to that post with effect from the said date, he filed the above O.A. During the pendency of that application, he was regularly promoted to that post with effect from 3.1.2002. So, at the time of final hearing, what remained in the Original Application was, what should be the date of effect of the promotion of the applicant to that post.
2. The petitioner claimed promotion on the strength of Exhibit P2 Avenue Chart for promotion. In fact, Exhibit P2 is an executive order showing the method of appointment to the post of Section Controller. The same was issued on 6.7.1999. Earlier, W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -2- the field was governed by Exhibit P1 Avenue Chart issued on 9.3.1988. As per Exhibit P1 Avenue Chart, 15% of the vacancies in the cadre of Section Controller were to be filled up by Assistant Yard Master. The selected incumbent will have to undergo prescribed training for a period of one year. As per Exhibit P2, to fill up the aforementioned 15%, Yard Masters were also included in the feeder category. In other words, Assistant Yard Masters and Yard Masters formed a combined feeder category for the post of Section Controller. Regarding training, Exhibit P2 provides that the selected incumbent should complete the prescribed period of training. But, the period was not specified. The writ petitioners took the stand that the applicant should undergo training for one year. Aggrieved by the said stand and contending that he need not undergo any training as he had already undergone such training for promotion as Yard Master, the O.A. was filed. It was pointed out that the training he underwent is identical to the training given to the incumbent, who is proposed to be promoted as Section Controller.
3. The writ petitioners resisted the application relying on W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -3- the period prescribed in Exhibit P1, for training. The first respondent/applicant submitted that Exhibit P1 is superseded by Exhibit P2 and the prescribed period mentioned in Exhibit P2 is contained in Exhibit R1(A). As per Exhibit R1(A), the prescribed training period is only 42 days, which he has already undergone. The Tribunal considered the above point and held that the applicant need undergo training only for 42 days and therefore, it was ordered to treat his promotion as regular with effect from the date he completed 42 days training, that is, from 13.7.2000. The order of the CAT is produced as Exhibit P11. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exhibit P11.
4. The Railways canvassed the very same point before this Court, which they unsuccessfully canvassed before the CAT. According to them, the first respondent could be promoted as Section Officer only on completion of one year's training. It is common case that the petitioner was promoted in 2002 without insisting or clearing one year training. Going by Exhibits P1 and P2, we are of the view that Exhibit P1 is superseded by Exhibit P2. We also notice that in Exhibit P2, the period of training is not W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -4- specified. So, the general prescription issued in 1994 in Exhibit R1(A) will govern the field. If that be so, the Tribunal has rightly overruled the objections of the Writ petitioners and ordered to treat the promotion of the 1st respondent/applicant, regular with effect from 13.7.2000. We find no jurisdictional error in that decision warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn