Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurmukh Singh Son Of Shri Jarnail Singh vs Union Of India Through ... on 23 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO.927-PB-2010 Decided on: 23.04.2012
CORAM : HONBLE MS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) &
HONBLE PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (ADM.)
1. Gurmukh Singh son of Shri Jarnail Singh, Aged 42 years.
2. Mohinder Kumar son of Shri Chaman Lal.
3. Mohan Lal son of Shri Bihari Lal.
4. Mukhtiar Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh.
5. Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Narender Singh
6. Bishan Dass son of Shri Gurdial
7. Yusaf Ali son of Shri Akbar Ali.
8. Randhir Singh son of Shri Hari Ram.
9. Naresh Kumar Bharti son of Shri T.N. Sharma.
10. Maheshwar Nayak son of Shri Mani Charan Nayak.
11. Raj Kumar Rana son of Shri Wazira Ram
12. Navin Kumar son of Shri Mukandi Lal
13. Kailash Chand son of Shri Mansa Ram.
14. Jaswant Singh Saini son of Shri Khila Ram Saini.
15. Pawan Kumar son of Shri Chaman Lall
16. Ramesh Chand son of Shri Net Ram
17. Sudarshan Kumar son of Shri Dina Nath
18. Prem Kumar son of Shri Desh Raj
19. Hardial Singh son of Shri Piara Singh
20. Jarnail Singh son of Shri Nathu Ram
21. Charanjit Singh son of Shri Sadhu Singh
22. Amarjit Singh son of Shri Charan Singh
23. Gurnam Singh son of Shri Prabhu Ram
24. Harnek Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh
25. Jagir Singh son of Shri Karnail Singh
(All are working as Technicians (Grade I, II & III) in Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala).
Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary-cum-Chairman, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. (This Respondent deleted vide order dated 3.2.2012).
2. General Manager, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
. Respondents
By : Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the applicants.
Mr. G.S. Sathi, Counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R (oral)
SHYAMA DOGRA, JM The facts as projected by the applicants are that they are working as Technicians Grade I, I & III and belong to different seniority units. The respondents issued a notice dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure A-4) for filling up 36 vacancies of Junior Engineers Grade I in different disciplines under the Intermediate Apprentice quota. As per the notice, the eligibile technicians from different seniority units could appear in the examination for promotion to the grade of JE Grade-II (Mechanical) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000. All the applicants submitted their applications for participating in the selection.
2. The applicants appeared in the examination and the respondents prepared a panel dated 13.5.2008 (A-3) on the basis of seniority only, meaning thereby that the entire purpose and object with which the selection was followed, stood defeated. Once the selection process is being followed and a merit list is prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates who appeared in the examination, there is no reason to give weightage to the seniority and make promotions solely on the basis of seniority.
3. The applicants submit that the issue raised in this case is fully covered by a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash Chander Joshi Vs. union of India & Others, CWP No. 4746-CAT-2002 decided on 9.4.2008 (A-5) wherein while interpreting rule 215 and 219 (j) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. I, the Court held that promotion by selection on merit from different cadres excludes seniority. Selection has to be on the basis of merit alone and it alone would be relevant for determining the right for promotion and there was no common seniority amongst different feeder cadres, and struck down rule 219 (j) of IREM Vol. I, which contemplated promotion on the basis of seniority. This decision was upheld by the Apex Court in SLP ) No.16774 of 2008 on 5.7.2009. Even this Tribunal has taken the same view in O.A.No. 332-PB-2009 titled Chamkaur Singh Vs. Union of India & Others which has been implemented by respondents. Similar view has been taken in a bunch of petitions in O.A.No.679-PB-2008 etc. titled Brij Mohan Versus union of India etc. decided on 29.7.2010 (A-6). The applicants filed a representation dated 19.10.2010 (A-7) but to no avail. They have thus filed this O.A. for a declaration that they be held entitled to the benefit of order dated 10.3.2010 (A-1) as upheld by Honble High Court vide Annexure A-2 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to review and modify the panel dated 13.5.2008 (A-3) and issue a fresh panel on the basis of merit of the candidates in the selection process.
4. The respondent have filed a reply. They have not disputed the facts about earlier litigation and further submit that when on directions of this Honble Tribunal fresh panels were prepared, out of 36 candidates in different seniority groups, 16 candidates were already empanelled on their own merit and remaining 20 candidates were to be adjusted. Since the requisite number of vacancies were not available in the intermediate quota, the vacancies of direct recruitment quota are required for temporarily diverting / converting to intermediate quota. Certain representations were filed by the candidates about wrong evaluation of their answer sheets. Answer sheets of 491 candidates were rechecked and upon revaluation it was found that additional 40 candidates who had earlier failed in the written test were found to have passed the written test and the panel was revised in accordance with the merit of the candidates after re-evaluation and it has been circulated on 3.2.2011 (R-6).
5. The applicants have filed a rejoinder. They submit that decision in the case of Chamkaur Singh (supra) has not been implemented properly as last promoted candidate as J.E. II has only obtained 48.75% and has still not been reverted while considering promotion of the applicants. Furthermore, 97 posts of JE Grade II are lying vacant in the RPF in different shops whereas only 22 have been diverted. They have also made certain averments with regard to preparing of a afresh panel after challenging the re-valuation of papers by the respondents to the effect that the said action of the respondents has already been held to be void ab initio by this Court in Satbir Singhs case decided by a Co-ordinate Bench on 1.3.2012 in O.A.No.118-PB-2011.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file.
7. We find that that the basic claim of the applicants is for being given the benefit of the judgment in the case of Chamkaur Singh (supra), which in fact has already been done inasmuch as the issue raised in this case emanates from the same very selection in which decision in the case of Chamkaur Singh and other cases had been given and after directions of this Tribunal, the panel has been revisited but later on the respondents have gone one step further. On a complaint by certain individuals, they have also re-evaluated the answer sheets of some employees which has resulted in changes in the list which has now been prepared on the basis of merit and not on the basis of seniority. This Court in Satbir Singh case (supra) has declared the action of the respondents as illegal in re-evaluating the answer sheets after a lapse of two-three years. Para 12 of the order is relevant to be quoted here-in-below :
Since the respondents have not placed on record any law to support the action of respondents for re-evaluation after a period of over two and a half years of all the answer-sheets, we are of the view that the exercise undertaken by the respondents is void ab initio and not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, set aside. Complaints placed on record by the respondents vide Annexure R/3 at page 108 are found to be relating to grievance of the candidates who claimed to have been awarded lesser marks for particular answer attempted by them. Therefore, we direct the respondents to prepare the merit list as per the order dated 10.3.2010 passed in the case of Chamkaur Singh (supra) and further speed up the process of appointment of candidates as per that list including the applicants as per their fitness. Needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the latest position in the matter is that the respondents have already been directed to prepare a fresh panel of selection as per merit in terms of directions given in Chamkaur Singhs case.
9. Resultantly, respondents are directed to prepare the panel, if not already prepared after the order passed in Satbir Singhs case, strictly according to the merit of the candidates as per observations made in Chamkaur Singhs case and other identical matter.
10. On completion of such exercise if the applicants make it in merit as per number of vacancies and are otherwise also found to be fit and suitable, they may be given the same benefits as have been given to Chamkaur Singh and other similarly situated persons. Needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In terms of these observations and directions as above, this O.A. stands disposed of. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Chandigarh.
Date: 23.04.2012
HC*
- 5 -