Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
M.K. Sawarkar vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI
CAMP AT NAGPUR.
O.A. No.2113/2006
DATED THIS Thursday THE 10th DAY OF February, 2011.
CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JOG SINGH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI SUDHAKAR MISHRA, MEMBER (A).
M.K. Sawarkar, Progressman,
Railway Electrification,
Surat. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri R.S. Sahare ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through its
General Manager,
Central Railway,
C.S.T. Mumbai.
2. The Sr. Divisional Railway
Manager (P), Central Railway,
Nagpur.
3. Shri Suresh Sukhdeo Adkine,
Trackman Ajni, C. Rly.
4. Shri Umesh Kanhuji Wankhede,
Trackman Wani, Central Railway.
5. Shri Deepak kawdooji Raut,
Trackman, Ajni, C.Rly.
6. Shri Sanjay Neelkanth Kapale,
Trackman, Wardha,
Central Railway.
7. Shri Dharmik Mahadeo Danveer,
Trackman, Wardha,
Central Railway.
8. Shri Bharat Ramchandra Lohkare,
Trackman Bhandak,
Central Railway.
9. Shri Gajanan Gangadhar Diwakar,
Trackman, Ajni, Central Railway.
10. Shri Shioprasad Laxman Thakur,
C.P.M. (RE) Surat.
11. Shri Ashok Kumar Khandagare,
(R.E.) Kattak.
12. Shri Shalikram Vishvanath Bhagat (SC),
(RE) Kattak.
13. Shri Mithu Tanti,
Mucaddam Junnardeo.
14. Shri Arun B. Mhaiskar, (SC),
Trackman, Nagari,
Central Railway.
15. Shri Bandu Pundlik Telang (SC),
Trackman, Hinganghat,
Central Railway. ..Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri R.G. Agarwal ).
O R D E R
Per : Shri Sudhakar Mishra, Member (A).
The applicant works as a Progressman in the Central Railway at Surat. Through this OA, he mainly seeks the following relief :-
i) Direct the respondents not to implement the list of 13 persons declared as passed in written tests further till the final decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the present OA.
ii) Direct the respondents to include the name of applicant on the basis that he has already passed the written test on 14.3.2006 and delete his juniors name that has been included in the list of 29.5.2006.
iii) Direct the respondent to fix the lien of the applicant in Group `C' category as indicated in rule 2007 of I.R.E.M. And Railway Boards letter Para 3, and as also ordered by the Hon'ble C.A.T. Ahmedabad Bench.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant, a diploma holder in Civil Engineering, was appointed as a casual Progressman in the Railway Electrification Project at Nagpur in January, 1987. In due course he was awarded temporary status in the then salary grade Rs.950-1500. With effect from December, 1997, his services were regularised as Progressman and he was placed in the higher grade of Rs.4,500-7,000.
3. Towards the end of the Electrification Project, the applicant's lien was to be fixed, the same was fixed in Group 'D'. The applicant had claimed that his lien should have been fixed in Group 'C', instead. The applicant appears to have represented to the Respondents that in accordance with Rule 2007 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) he should have been absorbed in the Group 'C' category after being allowed to write and pass the Trade Test against the 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota. The Respondents having denied the opportunity, the applicant had approached the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ahmedabad through OA No.606/99 which came to be decided on 29.4.2003. The Tribunal set aside the order granting lien to the applicant in Group 'D' and further directed as under :-
Accordingly, following the order of this Tribunal in OA.724/97 we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dt. 17.12.1997 so far as it concerns the two applicants and direct the respondents to consider them for regularisation in Group-C posts for the 25% of the vacancies reserved for departmental promotion from the unskilled and semi skilled category as envisaged if available and on their passing the requisite trade tests. If they succeed in the trade test as directed above they may be absorbed in regular vacancy of Group-C in the scale of Rs.1320-2040 as laid down in para-2007 (3) of IREM against 25% promotion quota in Group-C against the grade in which they have been appointed and working as Progressman.
4. In accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, the Respondents allowed the applicant to appear at the Trade Test which the applicant was declared to have passed as per the results published on 14.3.2006. However, as per a subsequent publication dt. 29.5.2006 the applicant's name was not included among the names of 10 successful candidates, whereas the names of some of his juniors were included. Hence, this O.A.
5. The case of the applicant is that, he having been declared as passed in the Trade Test, his claim for induction in Group 'C' ought to have been considered after, of course, consulting his service record. By furnishing copies of his working reports for the three years viz. 2003, 2004 and 2005, the applicant points out that his performances has been 'outstanding' and therefore he should have got the elevated post. The applicant further contends that there were irregularities in composition of final list of successful candidates, inasmuch as, one Shri Shalikram Bhagat who is an SC candidate, he is included as a general candidate even though the SC quota of (2) has been duly filled up by SC candidates. The applicant prays that his name should be included in the list of 29.5.2006 and the names of his juniors should be deleted.
6. The Respondents point out that against the order dt. 29.4.2003 of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, they had filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.16379/03) which has been admitted on 27.7.2004 and operation of the Tribunal's order has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Respondents, however, admit that the applicant had passed in the Trade Test and was declared successful as per results published on 14.3.2006. However, the Respondents state, as per the relevant Rules; para 219 (j)(iv) of the IREM; the final panel should be drawn up in order of seniority among those who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the aggregate, provided that those securing a total of 80% or more marks will be classed as 'outstanding' and will be placed on top of the panel in order of seniority. This rule, the Respondents point out is applicable in this case because this is a case of selection for a general post for which candidates outside normal channel of promotion are called from different cadres from the same Department, as well as, from other Departments and are allowed to compete. According to them, the Respondents had prepared the final panel of 10 successful candidates, since 10 posts were available initially. All the ten candidates so empanelled as per the list dated 29.5.2006 were classified as 'outstanding' due to securing 80% or more marks in the selection test. Being a selection post and selection having been made through a competitive test, the marks obtained had to be the criteria and the relevant rule, as stated, were to be kept in view. Accordingly, the list dated 29.5.2006 was prepared. Since the applicant had scored less than 80% marks he was not empanelled. The Respondents submit that there was neither any injustice nor any discrimination against the applicant. Instead, the Respondents have followed the relevant rules and thus have acted within law. Therefore, they submit, the OA is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
7. We have heard Shri R.S. Sahare, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri R.G. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute that the panel of 10 successful candidates as appearing in the list dated 29.5.2006, was drawn up on the basis of the results of written test declared on 14.3.2006. There is also no dispute that the empanelled candidates has scored more than 80% marks while the applicant had scored less than 80%. On behalf of the applicant it is not disputed that for being empanelled for promotion to Group 'C' candidates from various streams like Progressman and Trackman were allowed to compete and, thus, the competition was for a general category post. Under the circumstances, the provisions of Para 219(j) of IREM, relevant portions of which are reproduced below, were applicable:-
j. For general posts i.e., those outside the normal channel of promotion for which candidates are called from different categories whether in the same department or from different department, the selection procedure should be as under-
i.....
ii....
iii...
iv. The final panel should be drawn up in order of seniority from amongst those who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the professional ability and 60% marks in the aggregate, provided that those securing a total of ++ (80% or more marks} will be classed as outstanding and placed at the top of the panel in order of seniority [Authority : Railway Board's letter No.E(NG)I-90/PM1/11 dated 16.11.1998 (RBE 263/98)]}.
Since the LDCE test was held for a general category post and the 10 empanelled candidates had scored 80% marks or more, while the applicant had scored less than 80%, we do not see any infirmity in the panel prepared as per list dated 29.5.2006.
8. The O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
( Sudhakar Mishra ) ( Jog Singh )
Member (A) Member (J).
H.