Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
A Chandran vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 May, 2018
ORAL
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 22nd Day of May, 2018)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr.R. Ramanujam, Member (Administrative)
Original Application No.330/532/2018
A. Chandran, S/o Late Arokia Swami, R/o 10 K.L. Loco Colony,
Allahabad.
................ Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.S. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Headquarter Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The General Manager (P) North Central Railway, Headquarters
Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
3. Chief Medical Director, Central Hospital North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
4. Senior Personnel Office, North Central Railway, Headquarter
Office, Allahabad.
5. Sri S.K. Tripathi, Chief Pharmacist, (UR), DRH/North Central
Railway, Jhansi.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Shesh Mani Mishra
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following relief(s):-
"1. .................. to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 issued by the GM (P) NCR, Allahabad, respondent No.2 lowering the seniority of the applicant from serial No.12 to serial No.19 in the earlier inter se seniority list dated 07.09.2015 of Chief Pharmacist resulting the applicant a SC candidate has been ousted from zone of consideration of selection to the post of Assistant Pharmacy Officer (Gr.B) and has been replaced Page No. 2 by Sri S.K. Tripathi, a general candidate who is not at all in the zone of consideration, in gross violation to Railway Board orders, principles of natural justice and provisions for scheduled caste candidates in the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. ........................... to set aside/quash the alleged inter se seniority list of Chief Pharmacist said to have been circulated by the GM (P)/NCR/Allahabad vide letter No.797-E/NG-11/Med/inter se seniority/Chief Pharmacist/12 dated 12.2.2018 after declaration of written test result vide letter dated 11.01.2018 fixing date of viva voce on 13.2.2018 replacing name of Sri A. Chandran (SC) (Applicant), Chief Pharmacist Allahabad, by Sri S.K. Tripathi, who is not at all in the zone of consideration from Serial No.12 to 19-A in earlier inter se seniority list circulated vide letter dated 07.09.2015 with mala fide and ulterior motive to include Sri S.K. Tripathi, Chief Pharmacist, Jhansi, neither any opportunity of show cause. The alleged inter se seniority list dated 12.2.2018 has not been circulated and made known to the applicant. As such the Revised inter se seniority dated 12.2.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. ............................ to direct the GM (P)/NCR/Allahabad, respondent No.2 to allow the applicant to appear in the viva voce for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacist (Grade B) to be held on 24.5.2018 as per letter dated 4.5.2018 so that the applicant may get justice.
4. .............................. to direct the General Manager, NCR, Allahabad, Respondent No.2 to restore the name of the applicant in the earlier inter se seniority of Chief Pharmacist dated 7.9.2015 at Serial No.12 as a SC candidate and may graciously be pleased to direct the GM (P)/NCR/Allahabad to delete the name of the applicant in zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Assistant Pharmacy Officer (Gr. B) as per selection Notification dated 3.9.2015 and in the list of successful candidate in written test and to allow the applicant to appear in the viva voce as per GM (P)/NCR/Allahabad's letter dated 11.1.2018 as a Scheduled Caste candidate as and when fixed so that he may get justice.
5. ..................................to allow heavy cost in favour of the petitioner.
6. .................................... to pass any other order of direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
Page No. 32. Shri S.S. Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicant, who is a S.C. candidate, appeared in the examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Officer, Group 'B' under 70% quota in pursuance of the notification issued by the Railway Board by which they have notified two vacancies out of which one was for 'General' and another was reserved for 'SC'. The applicant was found eligible. He was allowed to participate in the selection process. Subsequently, respondents have declared the result in which name of the applicant has been mentioned and he was eligible to appear for viva voce. Tt is stated that vide order dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure A-7) the respondetns arbitrarily changed the inter-se seniority of the applicant and his seniority position has been changed from Sl. No.03 to Sl. No.10. Consequently, the applicant has been taken out from the zone of consideration for the aforesaid post. Therefore, it has been submitted that impugned order is not only arbitrary but also violative of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2000 SC (L&S) 57- Gajanan L. Pernerkar vs. State of Goa and Another to this effect.
3. Shri S.M. Mishra, Advocate putting his appearance on behalf of the respondents after taking advance notice.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and are of the view that the impugned order changing Page No. 4 the seniority position of the applicant after starting exam and that too without giving notice to the applicant cannot be allowed to sustain. It is law of the land that the order which is having civil consequences cannot be passed without applying principles of natural justice. Reasons are back bone of the order. In absence of reasons order cannot be said to be an order, because giving of reasons is one of the fundamental of good administration, failure to give reasons amount to denial of justice. Reasons are the line life between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision is conclusion arrived at. This is so held in case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2003(11) SCC 509.
5. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to issue notice to the applicant within two days on receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the applicant shall file his reply/objection to the notice within 07 days and if the same is filed within stipulated period, the respondents are directed to decide the same within 15 days thereafter. Till the disposal of the representation/objection the respondents are directed not to finalize the selection process. No costs.
6. Copy Dasti.
(R. Ramanujuam) (Sanjeev Kaushik)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil