Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs P Mani S/O Perumal, on 23 November, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 231-cl DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009:
PRESENT
THE HOIPBLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF ~.IIIfSTIOE "
AND
THE HON'BLE MI2.JUsTIc_E v.G,_SABHAII*:T. ii : "
WRIT PETITION No.324§O3fi'/2009 '('S.».cfAT-) "
BETWEEN g 5 _ ,
I. THE DIVISIONAL RERS' -NNEL OiFI"IC"EVR,» "
PERSONNEL BRANCH SBO, *
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAE'
BANGALORE;+560--023_. I
2. THE UNION
REP. BY ITS OEN.ERAL,MAN'A_OER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAI:,v.I_AY;'
HUBLI -- SEQ O20. ._ PETITIONERS
[BY SR1.» IIgEVvAI)AS,"SR..AI3v. A /W SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
='I«fOR-M/'S. 'NTAYAMITRA AEVOCATES)
SHRI P.'MANL
' "'=..=»S/O PERUMAL,
AGED ABOUT 47"YEARS,
_ .,cASUA;; LABOUR, SALEM DIVN,
" SOUTIIVIWESTERN RAILWAY,
R;/O'; -IIOIJUIIULLI POST,
" KADAYAM'" PATTI (VIA), OMALUR
' TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
WTHIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 8:;
"2«2V7 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN OA. No. 235/07 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT, BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, BANGALORE BENCH DT. 6.5.09 IN OA. NO. 235/O7 VIDE ANN--A, AND DISMIS-'£.__OA. NO. 235/O7 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. "
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING 'UP FOR DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVINGH "
(Delivered by P.D.DinakararI;) This writ petition is filed' 'of-the D"iV_iSif)_1'v1'a1I'IEé1'Sl)I:1ne1 " A Officer, South Western Railway V.a1"--."g_"ari'0ther iirespovrident in Original Application No.23I5/I file-.of the Central Administrative_ (hereina;f'ter referred to as 'CAT') Bangalore Benei1, aggrieved by the order dated gQ_;5.o5.2oo9 .fiviiere=in, the CAT has allowed the .Oai;t1"«...granted the prayer of the applicant by cIiteetitig_V%.tite["'«_tegepetident No.1----the first appellant herein to Complete' the exercise of absorption of Ex.CL's against the 79" Group 'D' posts in the manner explained in pI'I,g:ret§c:,<réIph~16 of the order within a period of three months I . V __ I the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4 Institute, Bangalore. Further contents Annexure 'A~5' would clearly show that in theflist' it of Casual Labourers eligible candidates"«._p:areew.. it entered in the live register and..the..r1anie of V' applicant has aiso been shown. V'»l3'urtl1er, 'i that applicant had been cailed for._sic-reeningepfori absorption of casual labourers tha--':_his has been found in theziive register. is-not diisputr.-:-d by the applicant. :j_th.e'*-.eiari'ier letters Annexures 'A--l'Vto 'A-3p_'V_i3rerevi'_canc'ell.edV..'jsifice the educational quaiiiicatizon 1: .pi_jc}.'»cribed for absorption-,"'it" the purpose of absorption-anid v{fo:'uldi"a.rise oiilyin case of initial appointrnent it 1 'V _V ' 1li.a_g'E' he rnaterial"---on record would clearly ShO'W- that there' is Inerit in the contention of ..v_Athe':g_jpetitioner thatthe applicants were calied for 'Sv:CI'E§'1'1i1:1g,Or1iy.'fOI' the purpose of preparing fresh "'Ei_Ve'.__regist_e,r ai.s*"the intimation would fairly show as -..'referred}' to above that the name of the i',_app1ic*ant. had already been entered in the live i2..fl.regi'steriand he had been called for absorption of casual labourers. The only ground upon which i petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of the applicant for absorption is age limit. It is clear from the Railway Board Master Circular No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as foHows:--
"At the time of screening of casual" ' labour relaxation in age should .-be automatic if it is established that V' individual was within the prescribed age limit and had been more or less, grega_lar_ly=. ' working. In old cases, ufihefe 'the "a.g'e. _ _ limit was not observe.d,.4_rela,ic>a_tion of should be considered"sympatheticaliyf'~--;""""
The cpos, DRMS the'--- Chief Engineers (Cons~truction}*--aife. conftpetenti -to./ grant the relaxation in--'_agte'5.' 'i
12. The factthat CVP_C:l")_s,V nentaiiaaene Chief Engineers (Const't'U.ction} ..are'«.co':1ipetVeint to grant re1axa'tion*-rritiideiiiifiiis n'ot«VV'dispii1'tediV'by the petitioner. Furthier, rhavinglfrejgard-.to ~ the fact that the case of the applicant before th'e-Tribunal is for absorption and -not for initiai afipointment. What is required cor1sidere'd"is------as to whether the appointment ~ .casi1a,1'l._a'oour was Within the prescribed age iV.lin"itia1ly recruited as a casual labour anti the ~fa¢tAlthat when the petitioner was initially engaged. as a casual labour, he was within the age it Alintit was not disputed as the date of birth of the .app1ieant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is .. 16/8/1979. The applicant has also substantiated before the Tribunal that though his r"?""*"*-.
2 name was found in the register he was not re?»-_".. engaged and persons who were junior to him..'in' , A' the list were engaged and therefore, the after detail consideration of __the_ above"
material on record has held thatgthe~-a.1:i'plieation of 'A the applicant for absorption_ Wis rejected erroneously and issued directions to eonzeple-.tei"1thei exercise of absorption of VpExi:,""Casual 'Labourers against the available'««_7'9_' Grosjup :posts in the manner explained in Para}, culled i'_c;u7t above.
13. 1.. Havir:fg...regard_ t;<ie?above said facts of the case, the petitioner and Master.'Circular'«No.48°and also having regard to the fact ithuat inaterial record clearly show that nargie' of the '"appliea,rLt had already been included i iri"-thei"t1ive ..,:egistér"'a,nd his application has been the ground of age and absorption beenjdjeclined only on the ground of age, wh'ichv-..'is*clearly erroneous and contrary to the Apcircuilari issued by the petitioner as referred to above. The Tribunal has issued direction as impugned in this writ petition. That having regard V' "to the above said material on record, we are satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal is . . -. "xv justified and does not suffer from any error or-Il'a illegality as to call for interference in exerci$.e__J'oVf:'l5. the writ jurisdiction of this Court and accorrif:i:1'1gVl§};' we hold that the writ petition i2sWd>evoid."'of' and pass the folloWing:-- it i osnsaxaz The writ petition iss«.dismissed_;_"
4. Hence, following findmlg by us in Writ Pefifion Dkx29767/2009 unqxged.pr an is§1r2oo9L as referred to supra,' Writ *p.etit*io[n is also liable to be dismissed. i.s;'d.ismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-
Chief justice Sd/-
JUDGE _. l.n.de:e:: Yes / No _A 3
4. _VvW'eb.H0st:"Yes'/No '~._SnEif_ '