Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Naresh Kumar Singh vs M/O Railways on 19 June, 2024
1 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00182/2015
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 19th day of June, 2024
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Naresh Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Pravesh Singh, unemployed aged
about 36 years C/o Dhananjai Singh Near Balaji Temple Barman,
Tahsil Kareli, Distt. Narsinghpur (MP)-487330 -Applicant
(By Advocate -Shri Gautam Prasad)
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary Ministry of Railway
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Railway Recruitment Board, East Railway Colony Bhopal
462010 through its Chairman.
3. Divisional Personnel Officer, D.R.M.'s Office Personnel
Branch West Central Railway. Jabalpur (M.P.) -482001
4. Shri Hari Kishore Bhakta, S/o Late Jaggu Bhakta, C/o Dr.
R.D. Kumar, Praojjawal Preparatory Centre Chakkar Chowk,
Muzaffarpur (Bihar)- PIN-842001
5. Divisional Personnel Officer, ECR Samastipur Railway
Division District Samastipur State of Bihar PIN 848101
6. Railway Recruitment Board Bhubaneshwar
7. Dy. CCO/East Coast Railway Bhubaneshwar
Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri S.P. Singh)
(Date of reserving the order: 27.02.2024)
Page 1 of 8
2 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
By way of this Original Application applicant has sought for direction to respondents to give benefit of alternative appointment to the applicant like respondent No.4.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for the post of Ticket Collector in category No.17 against advertisement i.e. Employment Notice No. 3/2007 dated 29.9.2007. He appeared and succeeded in the first stage written examination held on 22.2.2009. Thereafter, he was allowed to appear in the Second stage written examination held on 7.10.2012 which he qualified successfully and his roll number was 15731701053864. Thereafter, the applicant received a call letter dated 2.7.2013 about verification of documents and thereafter, final result was published and the name of the applicant appears in the merit at No.8 and his name appeared in serial no.6 for the post of Ticket Collector. He was called to report on 25.2.2014 to join the post vide letter dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure A/2) and thereafter, he was sent for medical examination and he was declared unfit for the medical category of Bee-2 due to visual standards (vision substandard) vide letter dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure A/4). Applicant was directed to prefer an appeal and Page 2 of 8 3 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 accordingly the applicant preferred an appeal on 19.3.2014 and appeared before the repeat medical board on 19.3.2014 but he was further declared unfit vide letter dated 30.7.2014 (Annexure A/5) by the Appellate Medical Board. It is submitted by the applicant that respondent No.4 appeared for the post of Traffic Apprentice but was found medically unfit in the said category but he was given job in other category. Result sheet is annexed at Annexure A/6. The Applicant is also claiming parity of the treatment by way of his alternative appointment i.e. from the post of Ticket Collector to Commercial Clerk. The Applicant preferred an Appeal to the Respondent No. 1 but it is of no avail. Hence, this Original Application.
3. Respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have submitted that the applicant after his selection had failed in the medical test and on appeal he was re-medically examined but declared unfit by the appellate medical board and thereafter he could not been appointment. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Traffic Apprentice but after declaring him unfit he was taken as Commercial Inspector to that extent since respondent No.4 is not of WCR Jabalpur therefore respondents No.1 to 3 cannot comment upon the same and respondent No.4 is posted under Samastipur Railway Division but the said Division has not been made party in this O.A. Therefore no Page 3 of 8 4 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 parity from respondent No.4 can be drawn. Railway Board issued an instructions dated 25.05.2009 that alternative appointment cannot be made. It is submitted that in a complete selection applicant was required to cross all the phases of the selection. Merely a meritorious candidate if he fails in the physical test cannot expect to be appointed on the post.
4. In view of objection raised by respondents No.1 to 3, applicant sought permission from this Tribunal and impleaded Divisional Personnel Officer, ECR, Samastipur Railway Division as respondent No.5 vide order dated 04.08.2015.
5. Respondent No.4 in his reply has submitted that he was employed by RRB/BBS (Bhubaneswar) vide employment notice No.NTPC/ER/01/2007 whereby vacancy was published jointly for CA TA ECRC, Sr. Clerk and JAA and single application was called and single qualifying test was taken by RRB. He was empanelled by the authority of RRB/BBS (Bhubneswar) as Traffic Apprentice and he was called for medical test he was found unfit for TA and thereafter he requested for alternative appointment as he had given single examination for the post of CA, TA and ECRC. The Chairman of RRB/BBS(Bhubaneswar) recommended to appoint him as ECRC vide letter dated 17.04.2015 but the grade pay was not same therefore he requested again to the authority to provide him Page 4 of 8 5 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 same grade pay as he had given single examination for CA and TA. Thereafter he was finally appointed by the authority as CA on the basis of alternative appointment.
6. Respondent No.5 in his short reply has submitted that respondent NO.4 was empaneled by RRB/Bhubaneswar vide panel dated 30.10.2008 and after being fit in C-1 medical category he was directed for training for the post of Commercial Apprentice for a period of two years w.e.f.06.04.2010. After completion of prescribed training he was posted as Commercial Inspector in the office of Dy. CCO Bhubaneswar.
7. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant has stated that the case of respondent No.4 was fully change of category because qualified test was given for the post of CA/ECRC also besides post TA. However, the applicant appeared in the examination only for the post of TC. In reply to this it is submitted that examination by Railway Recruitment Board was held for the different posts for the candidate who possessed minimum matriculate qualification and that examination is held for the post of TC, CC, AC cum Typist, Junior Clerk cum Typist and also for Train Clerk. In view of this pleading the claim of the applicant is strike down. A copy of the Centralised Employment Notice No. 04/2010 of the Govt. of India Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment Board is filed herewith as Page 5 of 8 6 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 ANNEXURE A/9. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 has been appointed on the alternative post under circular i.e. Annexure R-5, dated 25.5.2009 in the year of 2010. It is pertinent to mention that the examination of the applicant as well as Respondent No.4 were held on 22.2.2009 before the discontinuation of the policy of providing alternative to the medically failed candidate for any Group 'C' or 'D' post. It is notable that the appointment to the respondent No.4 has been given in the year 2010. The case of the case is squarely covered by the case of the respondent No.4 and on the principles of law that like should be treated alike, the applicant is also entitled for alternative appointment as his case is a part of Railway system which is fully binding on the respondents.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith.
9. It is admitted fact applicant had applied for the post of Ticket Collector in category No.17 against advertisement i.e. Employment Notice No. 3/2007 dated 29.9.2007. He appeared and succeeded in the first and second stage of written examination. Thereafter, final result was published and his name appeared in the merit at No.8 and his name appeared in serial no.6 for the post of Ticket Collector. He was sent for medical examination and was declared unfit for the medical category of Bee-2 due to visual standards (vision Page 6 of 8 7 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 substandard) vide letter dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure A/4). He preferred an appeal for re-medical examination but he was declared unfit vide letter dated 30.7.2014 (Annexure A/5) by the Appellate Medical Board. Applicant is seeking parity with respondent No.4 who appeared for the post of Traffic Apprentice but was found medically unfit in the said category but he was given job in other category. Therefore, he is asking for his alternative appointment i.e. from the post of Ticket Collector to Commercial Clerk. In the employment notice No.3/2007 it is seen that there is no other category listed for Ticket Collector whereas respondent No.4 was employed by RRB/BBS (Bhubaneswar) vide employment notice No.NTPC/ER/01/2007 whereby vacancy was published jointly for CA, TA ,ECRC, Sr. Clerk and JAA and single application was called and single qualifying test was taken by RRB which is evident from his admit card annexed with the reply of respondent No.4. He was empanelled by the authority of RRB/BBS (Bhubneswar) as Traffic Apprentice and he was called for medical test he was found unfit for TA and thereafter he requested for alternative appointment as he had given single examination for the post of CA, TA and ECRC. The Chairman of RRB/BBS(Bhubaneswar) recommended to appoint him as ECRC vide letter dated 17.04.2015 but the grade pay was not same therefore he requested again to the authority to provide Page 7 of 8 8 O.A.No. 200/00182/2015 him same grade pay as he had given single examination for CA and TA. Thereafter he was finally appointed by the authority as CA on the basis of alternative appointment. Hence, there was no alternative post for the category No.17 i.e. Ticket Collector to which applicant had applied for. So how can he claim alternative post on some other exam, for some other qualification or single test. No post of Commercial Clerk is given in the employment notice No.3/2007. Further he was declared unfit in the year 2014 whereby Railway Board's instruction 25.05.2009 is made effective from the date of its issue i.e.25.05.2009 which stipulates that "Board have decided to discontinue the policy of providing alternative appointment to the medically failed empaneled candidates selected through RRSs/RRCs for any Group 'C' or Group 'D' post. These orders supersede all earlier orders issued on the subject and will take effect from the date of issue. Since there was no alternative post provided in the said employment notice, case of respondent No.4 is on different footing hence parity cannot be claimed. Therefore we do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents.
10. Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
kg/-
Page 8 of 8