Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2014
1
Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others.
W . P. No. 10956/09
23/07/14
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel with Shri
Thaman Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Beohar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Calling in question tenability of an order dated 28.01.08 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in a proceeding held under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
Petitioner sought appointment on the post of Assistant Station Master. He appeared in the examination and was declared successful in the examination. His name was kept in the select list and vide Annexure P-3 dated 10.07.98, he was sent for training for being appointed as an Assistant Station Master (Provisional). According to the rule after undergoing the training in the Zonal Training Institute by Bhusawal, the incumbent has to appear in certain examination and pass the examination and it is only after passing of the examination that the incumbent is entitled for appointment as an Assistant Station Master. It seems that as per the rule, a candidate undergoing training is granted three chances to pass the requisite examination after the training.
In the case of the petitioner, he appeared in the requisite examination after the training was undergone by him but on all the three occasions, he failed consecutively. He was found ineligible for being appointed as an Assistant 2 Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others.
Station Master. However, on the ground that a circular has been issued by the Railway Board vide Annexure P-6 on 22.09.2000 and in the circular, a candidate like the petitioner can be considered for grant of appointment in a Group-D post and claim was made and when it was not considered, the matter came to the Central Administrative Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner. The Tribunal went into the question and found that in the circular dated 22.09.2000, the following stipulation is contained:-
"RRB candidates who don't pass initial training at ZTC BSL can be considered for Group-D appointment."
In the light of the aforesaid, the Railway Administration was directed to consider the option of the petitioner for grant of appointment on a Group-D post. However, after this order was passed, the Railway Administration pointed out that this circular dated 22.09.2000 is wholly incorrect. There is a typographical error in the same and the word 'can' has been wrongly inserted. It should read 'cannot'. Accordingly, inviting our attention to the Annexure P-7 dated 30 th October, 2000 where the correct position is reflected in the following manner :-
"RRB candidates who don't pass initial training at ZTC BSL can't be considered for Group 'D' appointment."3
Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others.
A review application was filed before the Tribunal and when the Tribunal rejected the review application, matter came to this Court in a writ petition and in the writ petition, this Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and on such consideration, the Tribunal found that the circular dated 22.09.2000 is not the correct circular. The correct circular is Annexure P-7 dated 30.10.2000 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that an employee who has failed in the training examination conducted at ZTC BSL is not entitled for appointment on the Group-D post. Again, placing reliance on the circular Annexure P-6 dated 22.09.2000, Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel tried to emphasize that this circular is still in existence. It has been issued by the Railway Administration and, therefore, relief should be granted to the petitioner.
On the contrary, Shri Sameer Beohar submitted that the circular Annexure P-6 is a copy filed by the petitioner. It is not the correct circular but he has filed the correct circular Annexure P-7 dated 30 th October, 2000 bearing the signature of the Personnel Officer to say that the correct import of the circular is as under :-
"RRB candidates who don't pass initial training at ZTC BSL can't be considered for Group 'D' appointment."
In the endorsement made in this circular Annexure P-7, it is clearly indicated that the circular dated 22.09.2000 at item no. 1 should be corrected as it does not reflect the 4 Shailesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and others.
correct position.
In view of the above, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal warranting interference. Petitioner is raising his claim on certain stipulation contained in the circular which is not correct as the circular Annexure P-7 clarifies the whole position.
Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the Tribunal, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma)
Judge Judge
Vy*