Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
R Dhanasekaran vs South Western Railway on 3 April, 2024
1
OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00053/2022
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
R. Dhanasekaran
S/o Sri C. Ramar
Aged about 38 years
Track Machine Maintainer, S.W. Railway,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer,
Track Machine, Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru 560 022 .... Applicant
(By Shri K. Shivakumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by General Manager,
S.W. Railway
Gadag Road, Hubballi 580 020
2. Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
S.W. Railway,
Hubballi 580 020
3. Sri Lokesha G
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru 560 022
2
OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
4. Ms. Menaka P
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
5. Sri Kumara M.S
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
6. Sri Veera Venkatesh K
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
7. Sri Rajesh K.B
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
8. Sri G. Mukesh Kanna
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
9. Sri Jnaana Vishvas
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
10. Sri Chitta Ranjan Gartya
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
11. Sri Vinay C.K.
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru 560 022
3
OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
12. Sri Rangaswamy D.L
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
13. Sri Binod Kumar Yadav
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
14. Sri Nagaraju K
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
15. Sri Prashant Kumar
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
16. Sri Ramesh Kumar R
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
17. Sri Mangesh Nagarale Manoharrao
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
18. Sri Damodar Arakeri
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
19. Sri Manraj Meena
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru 560 022
4
OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
20. Sri Manjunath S.V
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022
21. Sri Venugopala V.N.
Junior Engineer/Track Machine,
O/o Deputy Chief Engineer, Track Machine,
Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022 ... Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondents No. 1
and 2,
Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 to 14
and 16 to 20,
Shri Vishwanath Bhat, Advocate for Respondent No. 21,
None for Respondent No. 15)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the selection conducted for the post of Junior Engineer/Track Machine under LDCE quota along with the answer sheets of all participants, key answers and question paper of the subject selection and on perusal order for quashing of the said selection panels dated 21.11.2019 and 30.11.2021 (Annexure-A1 and A2) which are unconstitutional and against rules and direct the respondents to conduct re-examination on the notification dated 26.10.2018 OR
(ii) Alternatively order for induction of the applicant in the panel on the lines of decision taken in the case of Sri Venugopala V.N. and 5 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are, in the selection conducted for the post of Junior Engineer/Track Machine in 2019 by the official respondents, the applicant was declared qualified in the written examination along with other 45 employees, but in the panel released with the names of 18 employees on 21.11.2019, his name was not figured. Being aggrieved, the applicant along with Shri Keerthi and three other candidates approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1320/2019. Except Shri Keerthi, the application of other applicants were withdrawn on 05.12.2019 on the submission made by the learned counsel with liberty to approach this Tribunal with individual cases. The select panel has been amended on 30.11.2021 by including the name of Shri Venugopala V.N. The applicant approached the General Manager with a representation to order for inquiry and re- examination on 28.11.2019 and 25.02.2020 submitting that the selection has not been made in a fair manner and the valuation of the papers were not done correctly as some of the key answers were wrong. It is the grievance of the applicant that no action has been 6 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE taken on the representations and his genuine grievance has remained unsolved. Hence, this OA.
3. Learned counsel Shri K. Shivakumar representing the applicant submitted the key answer supplied for Question Nos. 25 and 30 in Section A and Question No. 1 in Section B were wrong. The descriptive questions were evaluated as per the choice of the evaluator and marks were awarded as per evaluator's discretion. Even after the selection was finalised and panel was released, the respondents are not ready to publish the marks secured by the selected candidates. During the pendency of OA No. 1387/2019 filed by Shri Venugopala V.N. (Respondent No. 21) challenging the selection, the respondents have voluntarily decided to amend the panel by including the name of the said applicant alone. In order to include the name of Shri Venugopala V.N in the panel, a show cause notice dated 11.11.2021 was issued to incorporate the name of Shri Venugopala V.N. at Sl. No. 13 in the panel and to delete the name of Shri Prashant Kumar from the panel, wherein it is stated that the panel is to be amended consequent to the orders passed by CAT in OA No. 1387/2019. Indeed, no such order was passed by this Tribunal. To justify their action, the respondents have played 7 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE the tactics referring to the OA No. 1387/2019 which was pending before this Tribunal. Before the expiry of the time granted for submitting the reply/explanation, the respondents, in a hasty manner, included the name of Shri Venugopala V.N. in the select panel. Accordingly, seeks for the inclusion of the applicant's name in the selection panel on par with Shri Venugopala V.N.
4. Learned counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the official respondents submitted that the overall marks scored by the applicant is 61.5 out of 80, whereas overall marks scored by the last selected candidate against UR category is 64.5 out of 80, hence, the applicant could not find a place in the panel against UR vacancies. After considering the original records of the selection of Junior Engineer/Track Machine against 25% LDCE quota in TMO cadre of Civil Engineering Department, the official respondents found that there was a totalling mistake in the marks awarded to Shri Venugopala V.N. while the OA No. 1387/2019 was pending before this Tribunal. Shri Venugopala V.N had scored 77.5 marks out of 100 and 3 marks were not taken into consideration while totalling. Adding the same, Shri Venugopala V.N. was found to be entitled for selection. Hence, the selection panel was amended and 8 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE accordingly OA No. 1387/2019 was disposed of by this Tribunal as having rendered infructuous vide order dated 03.12.2021. As such, the applicant's case cannot be compared with the Respondent No. 21 - Shri Venugopala V.N. Further, learned counsel submitted that the applicant cannot challenge the selection panel of 2019 at this belated stage.
5. Learned counsel Shri Vishwanath Bhat representing the Respondent No. 21 submitted that the said Respondent No. 21 has questioned the selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Track Machine) LDCE of 25% quota of Civil Engineering Department in OA No. 1387/2019. During the pendency of the said application, the said respondent sought information under RTI Act with regard to question paper for selection to the post of Junior Engineer, answer sheet, marks awarded to each answer and other information. On going through the information provided under the RTI Act, it was noticed that the evaluator while counting the total marks has given only 77.5 marks instead of 80.5 marks to the Respondent No.
21. After examining these aspects, this Tribunal advised the department of railways to reconsider the case of the Respondent No. 21, pursuant to which, 3 marks were awarded to the 9 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE Respondent No. 21 in addition to 77.5, owing to which, his name was included in the amended panel. Accordingly, a memo was filed by the learned counsel appearing for the railways before this Tribunal on 03.12.2021. Based on the same, OA No. 1387/2019 has been disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Justifying the action of the official respondents, learned counsel submitted that the applicant has participated in the selection and did not qualify in the written examination, as such, he cannot question the procedure adopted in the selection process after participating in the selection. On these grounds, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.
6. Respondent No. 15, party-in-person, has filed the reply statement submitting that he has no answer or role in the application filed herein since his name has been deleted from the list of Junior Engineer.
7. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the private respondents No. 3 to 14 and 16 to 20, adopting the arguments submitted by the official respondents, submitted that the applicant has no locus standi to question the selection. The applicant having scored only 61.5 marks out of 80, less than the marks scored by the last qualified candidate, cannot 10 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE expect his name also to be included in the selection panel. Justifying the selection panel and the appointments made thereon, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
9. The applicant having approached this Tribunal along with other applicants including Shri Venugopala V.N. - Respondent No. 21 and withdrawn the OA on 05.12.2019 with liberty to approach this Tribunal, failed to seek redressal of his grievance immediately thereafter, whereas, Respondent No. 21 filed OA No. 1387/2019. During the adjudication of the said matter, it appears mistake committed in the total marks awarded was discovered, hence, after awarding 3 marks (77.5 + 3) Respondent No. 21 was found to be entitled for selection. Accordingly, the selection panel was amended by issuing the show cause notice dated 11.11.2021. By virtue of the said amendment made to the selection panel, OA No. 1387/2019 has been disposed of, as having rendered infructuous. Indeed, Respondent No. 15 who was disturbed from 11 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE selection panel appears to be the aggrieved person. But the applicant is claiming his inclusion in the selection panel on par with Respondent No. 21. The applicant has slept over the matter from 05.12.2019 and has filed this OA on 27.01.2022 after the revised selection panel issued on 28.10.2021 and the disposal of OA No. 1387/2019.
10. It is well settled that the Court/Tribunal can come to the rescue of the litigant who is vigilant about his rights and not to a tardy person who sleeps over the matter. The applicant has risen from the slumber after the issuance of the amended panel by including Respondent No. 21 in the selection panel. Thus, the applicant being a fence-sitter, is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. A right accrued to the selected/appointed candidates cannot be disturbed at this length of time by adjudicating upon the correctness of the key answers. This Tribunal cannot sit in an armchair of an expert to examine the correctness of the key answers. Such exercise has to be made immediately at the time of selection/appointments.
11. It is pertinent to note that the candidates selected in the selection panel and appointed have scored more marks than the 12 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE applicant in the written examination and in the subsequent selection process, the applicant has been selected and appointed.
12. In compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal, learned counsel for the official respondents has placed the original answer scripts of the applicant. The applicant has scored 75 marks out of 100. After perusing the same, the original answer scripts are returned to the official respondents keeping the photocopy of the same for record purposes. No such mistake as found in the case of the applicant in OA No. 1387/2019 is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in the present case. It is submitted that some of the answer keys are wrong, and hence, revisiting the selection is necessary. We cannot accede to the said submissions of the learned counsel at this length of time as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Moreover, we cannot compare the applicant's case with Respondent No. 21. Accordingly, the OA fails.
13. To sum up, the applicant being a fence-sitter, is not entitled to seek for re-opening the settled selection panel at this length of time, more particularly, having failed to avail the remedy within a reasonable time. Secondly, the applicant's case cannot be 13 OA.No.170/00053/2022/CAT/BANGALORE compared with Respondent No. 21, and thus, inclusion of the applicant's name in the selection panel on par with Respondent No. 21 does not arise.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, OA lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/