Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anuj Parmar vs Union Of India & Others on 18 March, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.4474 of 2011 Orders reserved on : 04.03.2014 Orders Pronounced on : 18.03.2014 HONBLE SHRI G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) Anuj Parmar, S/o Shri Laxman Singh Parmar, R/o 5-E, Mata Sundri Place, New Delhi-110002. .Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma) versus Union of India & others 1. Union of India through, The General Manager, Northern Railway, Hd. Qrs. Office, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. .Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Shailendra Tiwari) ORDER SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) :
The issue to be determined in this case is whether the applicant was eligible to take the examination for the post of Traffic Apprentice against 10% LDCE quota.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged as substitute on 27.12.2008. He underwent training in the Training School, Kurukshetra where he joined on 29.12.2008. On 17.2.2009, he was posted under the Traffic Inspector, New Delhi. He was granted temporary status on 27.4.2009. His contention is that he had applied for taking the exam for the post of Traffic Apprentice for which Circular was issued on 17.8.2011. In this Circular, the eligibility requirement was as follows:-
From amongst serving staff (other than Ministerial) in the Traffic (Transportation) Department who are graduates are upto 40 years of age.
3. According to the applicant, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria but the respondents had refused permission to him to participate in the said exam. He was, therefore, forced to file this OA before us.
4. Under Interim orders granted by us, the applicant was allowed to appear in the examination provisionally. Subsequently, when this case was taken up on 10.1.2014, the respondents informed that the applicant had passed the relevant exam. The applicants counsel, therefore, prays that this OA be decided on merits.
5. According to him, the applicant fulfilled the requisite qualification for taking the said exam, as it is not disputed that he was a serving staff in the Transportation Department and was a graduate of less than 40 years of age. Therefore, there was no reason why he should have been denied participation in this examination. The applicants counsel on Annexure A/6 of the paperbook has also quoted the relevant Recruitment Rules for the aforesaid post. These rules are as follows:-
ii. 10% through Limited Department Competitive Examination from amongst serving staff (other than Ministerial) in the Traffic (Transportation) Department who are graduates and are upto 40 years of age.
6. Thus, he argued that the Circular issued by the respondents was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and according to this the applicant fulfills all the requisite qualifications and was, therefore, eligible to take the said examination. He argued that since he has now passed the said examination, he should be appointed to the aforesaid post.
7. The respondents on the other hand stated that the applicant was not eligible to take this examination, as this was meant for Group C employees whereas the applicant was a Group D employee. They argued that the post of Traffic Apprentice is a gateway for selecting persons to man sophisticated posts directly related to the safety of trains, namely, Station Master, Traffic Inspector, Yard Master, Section Controller etc. For manning these posts, one should have sufficient experience of train handling. The applicant who was working in the lower rung of the hierarchy cannot straightway jump to the second highest rung of the ladder.
8. In support of their contention that this examination was meant only for Group C employees, they stated that the Recruitment Rules for Group C and Group D employees were contained in Chapter I Section B of IREM Vol.I 2009 Edition. The extent of application of this Chapter is mentioned in Para 101 sub section 1 which reads as under:-
The rules in Sub section I to III apply to Group C and workshop and artisan staff of Indian Railways and categories and rules for group D are dealt with in sub section IV under the heading Rectt. & Training of Group D Railway servant.
In Section B of Chapter-I of IREM Vol. I there are four sub sections as mentioned below:-
Sub section-I-General.
Sub section-II-Procedure.
Sub Section-III-Recruitment & Training Sub section IV-Rectt. & Training of Group D Railway servant.
9. As regards promotion of Group D employees to Group C posts is concerned, it is dealt with under sub section IV Para 189 wherein promotion to post such as lowest grade of Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector, Train Clerk, Office Clerk, Store Clerk etc. is provided. As far as the applicant is concerned, since he belongs to the Traffic and Transportation Department and is presently working as a Pointsman, the channel of promotion in class III would be to the post of Train Clerk.
10. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record.
11. It is clear that in the Circular issued by the Department inviting applications for this examination, nowhere it is mentioned that this examination is meant only for Group C employees. However, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the relevant Recruitment Rules quoted by the applicants counsel is contained in Chapter I Section B Para 125 sub section 3 of IREM, which is, as mentioned above, applicable only to Group C employees. These Rules are statutory. A circular which is in the nature of executive orders cannot override the statutory rules. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant argued that distinction between Group C and Group D employees had been abolished by the 6th CPC. The respondents counsel, however, replied by saying that this particular recommendation of the 6th CPC was yet to be implemented by the Railways and that the Recruitment Rules so far existing in the Railways have not been amended to incorporate this recommendation. Hence, for the time being, the distinction between Group C and Group D employees is continuing in the Railways.
12. After hearing submissions of both sides, we are convinced that there is merit in the contention of the respondents. Admittedly, while the Circular dated 17.8.2011 did not specify that this examination was meant only for Group C employees yet this circular cannot take precedence over the Recruitment Rules, according to which this examination was meant only for Group C employees. The proper course of action for the respondents would have been to issue a corrigendum to this Circular to clarify the position. Nevertheless we are not inclined to grant the benefit of this mistake committed by the respondents to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, dismiss this OA. No costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ravi/