Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Babin Kumar Dash And Another on 20 July, 2017
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.25050 of 2014
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
---------
Union of India and others ...... Petitioners
- Versus-
Babin Kumar Dash and another ...... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : M/s. Subrat Misha, S.Mohapatra
For Opp.Parties : M/s Nirmal Ranjan Routray, T.K.Choudhury,
S.K.Mohapatra
---------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA
&
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment : 20.07.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. N. Prasad, J.This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railways, Bhubaneswar wherein the order dated 17.9.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.942 of 2010 is under challenge, whereby and where under the Tribunal while disposing of the original application has given a declaration regarding exclusion of name of the applicant from the final merit list on the ground of lack of Foot-Plate experience, is bad in law and accordingly directed them to take follow up action based on the performance of the applicant in the test as has been extended to other similarly placed persons who were parties in O.A.Nos.598 of 2006 and 724 of 2006, the exercise to be completed within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
2. The fact of the case is that the applicant before the Tribunal had joined service as Assistant Driver on 3.7.1992 under the Kharagpur Division of South Eastern Railway, on option he has been transferred and joined in the 2 Electrical Department of East Coast Railway on 21.5.2003, posted as Traction Loco Controller vide order dated 30.6.2003, he was absorbed in the Electrical Department of East Coast Railway Headquarters Office w.e.f. 1.11.2003. The respondents had issued notification for filling up of eight posts of Loco Inspectors at Headquarters Electrical Department on 21.7.2006 which was subsequently been revised on 2.8.2006. The applicant along with others applied for appearing at the test which was held on different dates and final result was published vide memorandum dated 1.1.2008 in which the name of the applicant was shown at sl.no.1 with remark „passed‟, final result published vide memorandum dated 1.1.2008 was modified vide memorandum dated 28.10.2010 in which the name of the applicant did not find place for the reason that he has not completed three years of service of Foot-Plate experience in LP-Sr.LP(Good/Passenger/Mail/ Express), as such he has filed the original application seeking the following reliefs:
" to quash the letter dated 28.10.2010 so far it relates to deletion of the name of the applicant from the panel;
And to direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Loco Inspector basing on the result dated 1.1.2008."
3. The applicant has taken ground that the issue, on the basis of which his candidature has been rejected, has already been decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein circular dated 7.10.2002 and the letter of the Railway Board by which they were barred from appearing in the written test as well as viva voce test, the aspirants have been directed to be considered basing on their service rendered as Controller for the purpose of counting Foot-Plate experience required for the post of Loco Inspector and accordingly they were allowed to participate in the department examination. The said order has been confirmed by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 3.3.2005 in C.W.P.No.14403 of 2004.
The applicant has taken further ground that the issue has already been decided by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in W.P. No.8515-17 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.4539-41 of 2006 vide order dated 10.9.2007 dealing with the same issue. The order passed by the Delhi High Court has also been confirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP(CFC)No.8999-9001 of 2008.
34. It has been submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the issue having settled by the Chandigarh High Court as well as Delhi High Court which ultimately been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and as such the Tribunal, in the instant case, has passed the order taking into consideration the issue having been settled by the Court of law. He submits that the fact of the case of the applicant in the instant writ petition is similar to that of the applicant before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal as well as the Principal Bench of Tribunal at Delhi.
The railway has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant has no experience as has been reflected in R.B.E.No.180/2002 which provides of having three years of Foot-Plate experience to be considered for the post of Loco Inspector and since the application is not possessing the said experience eligibility, as such his case cannot be considered for the post of Loco Inspector.
5. Learned counsel for the Railway, however, in course of argument, has not disputed the fact that the applicant is having three years of experience as Controller which has been directed to be counted for the purpose of counting Foot-Plate experience, as has been adjudicated by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilraj Singh and Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors, vide OA No.533/HR/2003 wherein circular dated 7.10.2002 has been challenged and the Tribunal has passed direction to consider the tenure of service rendered as Controller for the purpose of counting the Foot-Plate experience required for the post of Loco Inspector.
6. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Dilraj Singh and Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors(supra), the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,Delhi in OA No.1041 of 2005 wherein similar issue has been decided regarding consideration of period of service rendered as Controller for the purpose of counting Foot-Plate experience required for the post of Loco Inspector, as has been provided in the circular dated 7.10.2002, has been said to be illegal and direction has been issued 4 to count the period of service rendered as Controller for the purpose of counting Foot-Plate experience as required for consideration for appointment to the post of Loco Inspector, the said orders have been confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the order passed in C.W.P.No.14403 of 2004 dated 3.3.2005 and W.P.(C) No.8515-17 of 2006 passed by the Delhi High Court dated 21.8.2007 as well as the order passed by the Delhi High Court having been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP(CC) No.8999-9001 of 2008 are of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been settled.
It is not in dispute that the applicant has rendered his service as Controller and as such denying his claim by not counting his service rendered by him as Controller for the post of Loco Inspector is not proper and the Tribunal after taking note of the issue having been settled by the court of law as herein above, has passed well reasoned order.
7. We, after going through the pleadings made by the parties and having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal based upon the orders passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and the Principal Bench at New Delhi having been confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Court as well as affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, is of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench has not erred in passing the order by giving similar treatment to the applicant for consideration of his case for appointment as Loco Inspector.
8. In the result, we find no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
....................... ........................
S.N. Prasad, J. Sanju Panda, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th July,2017/Palai