Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Anirudha Purohit vs East Coast Railway on 8 May, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
Reserved on 07.05.2025 Pronounced on 08.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Aniruddha Purohit, aged about 57 years, S/o. Late
Sheshadev Purohit, working as TPM-A in the O/o.The
SMR, Maneswar Station, At-Maneswar, P.O.-Dhankauda,
Dist.-SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768005, ODISHA.
2. Binod Kumar Shaw, aged about 50 years, S/o. Sri Bijay
Kumar Shaw, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR,
Sambalpur Station, At/P.O.-Khetrajpur, District
SAMBALPUR, PIN 768005, ODISHA.
3. Pradeepta Kishore Sandha, aged about 56 years, S/o. Sri
Chintamani Sandha, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The
SMR, Rengali Station, At/P.O.-Rengali, Dist.-
SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768212, ODISHA.
4. Subesh Bag, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late Duryodhan
Bag, working as TPM-A in the Office of The SMR,
Maneswar Station, At/P.O.-Maneswar, District-
SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768005, ODISHA.
5. Srikanta Kumar Sahoo, aged about 54 years, S/o. Sri
Sridhar Sahoo, working as TPM-A in the Office of The
SMR, Hirakud Station, At/P.O.-Hirakud, Dist. -
SAMBALPUR, PIN:768020, ODISHA.
6. Sadhu Charan Sahu, aged about 50 years, S/o. Sri
Govinda Sahoo, working as TPM-A in the Office of The
SMR, Handapa Station, At/P.O.-Handapa, Dist.- ANGUL,
PIN:759127, ODISHA.
7. Sukadev Mohanty, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sri Fagu
Charan Mohanty, working as TPM-A in the Office of The
2 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
SMR, Sambalpur City Station, At/P.O.-Dhankauda,
District- SAMBALPUR, PIN:768006, ODISHA.
8. Ashwini Kumar Dora, aged about 51 years, S/o.Late
Satrughan Dora, working as TPM-A in the Office of The
SMR, Sambalpur Station, At/P.O.-Khetrajpur, District-
SAMBALPUR, PIN:768003, ODISHA.
9. Pradip Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sri Ramji
Singh, working as TPM-A in the Office of The SMR, Chief
Coaching Control, DRM Office Complex, At/ P.O.-
Khetrajpur, District-SAMBALPUR, PIN:768003, ODISHA.
10. Uday Shankar Mishra, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late
Shivshankar Mishra, working as TPM-A in the O/o.The
SMR, Hirakud Station, At/ P.O.-Hirakud, District-
SAMBALPUR, PIN:768020, ODISHA.
11. Raghunath Sahu, aged about 52 years, S/o. Sri N.
Sudarsan Sahu, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR,
Jarpada Station, At/ P.O.-Jerangdehury Sahi, Dist.-
ANGUL, PIN:768020, ODISHA.
12. Saroj Kumar Rana, aged about 51 years, S/o.Sri
Handuram Rana, working as TPM-A in O/o. The SMR,
Bolangir Station, At/ P.O./ Dist.-BOLANGIR, PIN:767001,
ODISHA.
13. Sanjaya Kumar Nayak, aged about 51 years, S/o. Sri
Udaya Nath Nayak, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The
SMR, Rengali, At/ P.O.-Rengali, Dist.-SAMBALPUR,
PIN:768212, ODISHA.
14. Benudhar Pradhan, aged about 56 years, S/o.
Balabhadra Pradhan, working as TPM-A in O/o. The
SMR, Sarangipali Station, At-Sarangipali, P.O.-
Gatikrishnapur, District -ANGUL, PIN: 759125, ODISHA.
15. Jaydev Roul, aged about 50 years, S/o.Sri Lochan Roul,
working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR, Bamur Station,
At/P.O.-Bamur, District -ANGUL, PIN: 759125, ODISHA.
16. Akshya Kumbhar, aged about 54 years, S/o. Late Bainath
Kumbhar, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR,
Harishankar Road Station, At-Harishankar Road, P.O.-
Lathor, Dist. BOLANGIR, PIN: 767038, ODISHA.
3 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
17. Baikuntha Barik, aged about 50 years, S/o.Late Jethu
Barik, working as TPM-A in O/o.The SMR, Bargarh Road
Station, At/P.O.-Bargarh Road Junction, Dist. BARGARH,
PIN: 768028, ODISHA.
18. Dasa Padhan, aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Makaru
Padhan, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR, Badmal
Station, At-Makri, P.O.-Goilbhadi, P.S.-Saintala, Dist.-
BOLANGIR, PIN:767033, ODISHA.
19. Chitta Ranjan Pradhan, aged about 51 years, S/o.Sri
Sudarshan Pradhan, working as TPM-A in the office of
Chief Coaching Control Office, DRM Office Complex, P.O.-
Khetrajpur, District-SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768003, ODISHA.
20. A. Surya Prakash Rao, aged about 56 years, S/o. Sri A.B.
Raju, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR, Bolangir
Station, At/P.O./ District -BOLANGIR, PIN: 767001,
ODISHA.
21. Amar Nath Sanyal, aged about 50 years, S/o.Late Arun
Kumar Sanyal, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR,
Sambalpur Station, At/P.O.-Khetrajpur, District -
SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768003, ODISHA.
22. Indramani Sahu, aged about 51 years, S/o. Late
Raghunath Sahu, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR,
Lanjigarh Station, At/P.O.-Lanjigarh Road, Dist.--
KALAHANDI, PIN: 766110, ODISHA.
23. Pijush Kumar Jana, aged about 52 years, S/o.Sri Rabindra
Kumar Jana, working as TPM-A in O/o. The SMR,
Sambalpur Station, At/P.O.-Khetrajpur, District -
SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768003, ODISHA.
24. Sana Kumar Gouda, aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Rama
Gouda, working as TPM-A in the O/o. The SMR, Bissam
Cuttack Station, Bissam Cuttack, Dist. -RAYAGDA, PIN:
765019, ODISHA
25. Karitika Kumar Nag, aged about 51 years,S/o.Sri Ranjit
Nag, presently working as TPM-A in O/o. The SMR,
Saintala Station, At-Saintala Railway Station Road, P.O.-
Mahagaon, Dist.-BOLANGIR, PIN: 767032, ODISHA.
26. Brundaban Putel, aged about 50 years, S/o. Sri Tunu
Putel, at present working as TPM-A in O/o. The SMR,
4 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
Khariar Road Station, At/P.O.-Khariar Road Station,
Dist.-NUAPADA, PIN: 766104, ODISHA.
27. Niranjan Bhutia, aged about 54 years, S/o. Late Harihar
Bhutia, working as TPM-A in O/o. The SMR, Sambalpur
Station, At-Sambalpur City, Ρ.Ο.-Dhankauda, Dist. -
SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768006, ODISHA.
28. Goutam Roy, aged about 52 years, S/o. Late S.C.Roy,
working as TPM-A in O/o.The SMR, Garabhaga Station,
Dist. -SAMBALPUR, PIN: 768004, ODISHA.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its General
Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist-KHURDA, PIN:
751016, ODISHA.
2. Principal Chief Personal Officer, East Coast Railway, Rail
Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist-KHURDA,
PIN: 751016, ODISHA.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Jatni, Samblapur Division,
At/P.O.-Modipada, Dist.-SAMBALPUR, ODISHA, -PIN :
758002.
4. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager DRM (P) Office,
Sambalpur, At/P.O.-Modipada, Sambalpur, District
SAMBALPUR, PIN-768002.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. J.K.Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Respondents issued notification on 10.01.2024 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for holding general 5 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 selection for promotion to the post of Goods Train Manager in Level- 5 against 60% DPQ in Operating Department of Sambalpur Division. Applicants offered their candidature for the posts. Respondents conducted the written examination on different dates, i.e. on 4 th, 6th and 8th of April, 2024. 153 candidates had participated in the written examination. The result of the written test was published on 05.08.2024 and 53 candidates got qualified including the applicants. All on a sudden, on 26.09.2024, respondents cancelled the notification dated 10.01.2024 due to discrepancies shown in the said notification relating to eligibility of the candidates in the lower grade. It is stated that being aggrieved by such cancellation, applicants along with other successful candidates submitted representation on 08.10.2024 seeking annulling the order of cancellation dated 26.09.2024. The applicants filed OA 645/2024 challenging the said decision of cancellation of notification. Since the applicants did not bring to the notice of this Bench of the representation, which they had filed on 08.10.2024, the said OA was dismissed by this Bench on 06.11.2024 being hit by Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985. Thereafter, they filed this OA enclosing thereto copy of the representation 6 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 seeking to quash the order of cancellation of the notification dated 26.09.2024 thereby directing the respondents to promote the "unsuccessful candidates" as per their merit list within a stipulated period. The aforesaid relief they have sought on the ground that the respondents department cancelled the notification on the sole ground of lacking clarity concerning the residency period of three years in the notification and due to non-clarity three candidates, who were not eligible, made eligible and allowed to appear at the examination. According to the applicants, after they were declared successful in the written examination, a right has been accrued on them for being promoted to the post, in question, and, that, for the mistake committed by the department, they ought not to have been made to suffer that too, when out of three ineligible candidates, one candidate only had got selected. The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 is quoted below:
"In view of the ambiguity/lacuna in Notification No. DRM(P)/SBP/Staff/Optg/Sele./GTM/60%/DPQ dated 10.01.2024 concerning the residency period of three years in the lower grade to appear for the Goods Train Manager selection. The lack of clarity has resulted in unequal treatment of candidates, denying equal opportunity to all eligible participants.7 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
In light of the above and to ensure equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, both the Notification and the subsequent examinations of Goods Train Manager held on 04.04.2024, 06.04.2024 & 08.04.2024 are hereby cancelled as decided by the Competent Authority." (Emphasis added)
2. Respondents in their counter have submitted that after publication of the result of the written examination on 05.08.2024 and before formation of panel, appeal dated 11.09.2024 was submitted by six Commercial Clerks/Ticket Collectors of Sambalpur Division stating inter alia that their application forms for the said selection were not forwarded by their Controlling Supervisor based on the stipulation mentioned in the notification. On examination, it was found that in the Notification dated 10.01.2024- "IN THE ELIGIBILITY AND SERVICE CONDITIONS OF STAFF" it has been erroneously mentioned that the staff working in the categories of Operating and Commercial department with a minimum of three years of regular service in the respective category/post as on date of notification i.e. 10.01.2024. By mentioning words "minimum of three years of service in the respective category", some of the staffs, who were promoted from Rs. 1900/- to Rs.2000/- or to Rs.2400/- but not completed three years of requisite service in their respective grades 8 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 considered themselves ineligible. However, some other staffs, who applied with similar qualification were considered eligible. It was also found that the six Commercial Clerk cum Ticket Collector who represented before the Railway Administration vide application dated 11.09.2024, were actually eligible as per Railway Board's guidelines and non-forwarding of their application by Railway administration based on a faulty notification was erroneous. However, a Committee was constituted comprising of four selection/JA Grade Branch officers of Sambalpur Division to inquire into the matter and submit report, who upon conducting necessary inquiry submitted their report on 24.09.2024 pointing out the following:
"(A) Ambiguity in Notification. The committee identified ambiguity in the notification related to the calculation of the three-year residency period. Specifically, it lacked clear instructions on whether the total service rendered in all eligible feeder grades would be considered. (B) Lack of Explicit Clarification: The notification did not include an explicit sentence clarifying that the total service in all feeder grades would be taken into account when calculating the residency period. This omission created confusion among staff members.
(C) Impact on Applications: Due to this ambiguity, some staff members refrained from applying, believing they were not eligible based on their understanding of the notification. While the Applications of some staff were not forwarded by the in-charges.9 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
(D)Unequal Treatment of Applicants: Despite being similarly situated, some individuals had their applications forwarded, appeared for the exam, and successfully passed written test.
(E)Denial of Equal Opportunity: The inconsistency in the treatment of applications arised due to ambiguity in the Notification led to a denial of equal opportunity for all staff in similarly situated position. Those who applied and passed benefited, while others, who might have been eligible but did not apply, were unfairly excluded. (F) Supplementary Exam: It is clear that staff members who are already on the eligibility list and missed the exam due to the above three reasons can only be considered for a supplementary exam. Considering these staff were not on eligibility list hence they cannot be considered for supplementary exam.
(G)Finally, the committee recommended that, "in light of the principle of equal opportunity and natural justice, and to address the legitimate concerns raised by the staff regarding the eligibility criteria's ambiguity, it would be appropriate to cancel the Notification and Consequent Examination. This would allow for a fresh notification with clearer eligibility criteria, explicitly stating that combined service periods will be considered across relevant grade pay levels."
3. The matter was placed before the competent authority and the competent authority after examination of the matter in its entirety cancelled the notification/selection. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that mere selection of a candidate does not confer any indefeasible right for appointment/promotion and, therefore, the stand of the applicants that, after their selection, cancellation of the notification infringed their right, which is in violation of the 10 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 provisions made under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is not correct. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicants, besides reiterating the points raised in the OA and rejoinder, noted above, has placed a copy of the common order dated 04.02.2020 of this Bench in a Batch of cases in OA No. 609/2019 & Ors., wherein the cancellation of the selection was challenged and this Bench of the Tribunal held the same as illegal, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 21107/2020 vide order dated 26.10.2022 to state that the present case being one and the same by applying the aforesaid order, they may be granted the reliefs.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
6. At the first instance, we have examined the facts and issues involved in common order dated 04.02.2020 of this Bench in a Batch of cases in OA No. 609/2019 & Ors., wherein the cancellation of the selection was challenged and this Bench of the Tribunal held the same as illegal, and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in 11 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 W.P.(C) No. 21107/2020 vide order dated 26.10.2022 vis a vis the facts and issues cropped in this OA. We find that in the case referred to above, the selection was cancelled alleging malpractices by some of the candidates and this Tribunal examining the matter held that by cancelling the entire selection for the malpractices of a few candidates is illegal whereas in the instant case the notification was cancelled since by putting erroneous conditions some of the eligible candidates were deprived of taking part in the selection and some of the candidates who were not eligible allowed to appear. Thus, the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant on the face of it has no application in the instant case.
7. It is noticed that in compliance of the interim order dated 20.11.2024, the respondents considered and rejected their representation dated 05.10.2024 and the reason of rejection was communicated vide order dated 02.01.2025, copy of which has also been filed by the applicants in the rejoinder but, for the reasons best known to them, they did not seek to quash the same by bringing it within the scope and ambit of challenge in this OA notwithstanding 12 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 the law that quashing of the order of rejection dated 02.01.2025 is a mandatory requirement for adjudicating the merit of the matter.
8. While selection is a positive step, it's a condition of eligibility, not a guaranteed outcome. The final decision to appoint rests with the relevant authority, and they can still choose not to appoint, even if a candidate is on the select list. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. The above principle has also been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in subsequent decision in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Rajkishore Nanda, AIR 2010 SC 2100, observing as under:
"A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate." 13 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024
9. Further, mere participation in selection process does not confer any right in the candidate either to seek appointment or even to challenge any policy decision of the employer canceling the selection process vide Hamma Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1996 (10) SCC 742, S. Renuka and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 2002(5) SCC 195.
10. It is also noticed that the process of selection was enquired into and cancelled by virtue of the representation submitted by the aggrieved employees and, therefore, in compliance of principles of natural justice, they being the necessary party ought to have been made as respondents in this case but have not been made.
11. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies are to be filled strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and giving opportunity to all concerned or else it will be against the provision made under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, according to the Respondents, due to deficiency in the notification, candidates who were eligible were debarred and some of the ineligible candidates made to appear in the examination. It is not the case of the applicants that any of the selected candidates have 14 O.A.No. 260/00692 of 2024 been giving promotion but they were denied. On examination of the facts with the reference to law cited above, we find that the stand that the right of the applicants have been infringed by the cancellation of the selection is not sustainable.
12. Thus, viewed the matter from any angle, we find no merit in this OA which is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS