Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Om Prakash, S/O Shri Jogi Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through (The ... on 7 March, 2008
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 4.4.2007 and has sought review DPC and further consideration for the post of Goods Guard with all consequential benefits.
2. Applicant, who qualified the written test for the post of Goods Guard when not found his name in the panel made a representation. However, a minor penalty of withholding of set of passes, according to him, cannot be an impediment for his promotion, as per RBE No. 12/1993 in a selection post when a vacancy has been reserved for a person against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, or he is under suspension, which is finalized within a period of two years of approval of provisional panel, and if one is inflicted only a minor penalty, he should be promoted in turn. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Tribunal in OA-1758/1997 - Vidya Prakash v. Union of India and Anr. , decided on 31.5.2000 and Deva Ram v. Union of India and Anr. , (OA No. 2048/2006) decided on 28.8.2007.
3. On the other hand, Learned Counsel of respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the right to be considered is the only right in promotion and as applicant was awarded during the period of last three years four minor penalties, accordingly as per the selection norms for selection post in non-gazetted category, one has to secure 60% marks in aggregate and as half of the mark is deducted for each of the penalties, applicant having four minor penalties, his two marks have been deducted and as he could not secure 60% marks in aggregate, his name could not be placed in the final penal.
4. Insofar as RBE 13/93 is concerned, it is stated that it was not applicable, as no vacancy was reserved for applicant.
5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of the original departmental record produced by the respondents, though censure, a minor penalty, is held to affect promotion, as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. A.N. Mohanan, , yet RBE No. 13/93 is applicable when promotion of a Railway servant is in question, who is either placed under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending.
6. Paragraphs 3.6, 3.7 and 3.9, as a condition precedent lay down either resort of sealed cover procedure or a vacancy is to be reserved. In the present case, as none of the conditions exists, the circular will have no application. Moreover, in the selection process as per RBI ibid, empanelment is to be done after qualifying the test and securing aggregate 60% marks for being placed in the panel, non-achievement of such a criterion, one has no indefeasible right to be empanelled and promoted.
7. Insofar as the case-laws cited by the applicant are concerned, in Deva Ram's case (supra) the issue was regarding placement of matter under sealed cover and a vacancy was reserved and in Vidya Prakash (supra) cadre restructuring was in question, the ratio on the facts is distinguishable and hence in the facts and circumstances of the present case these decisions would have no applicability.
8. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, as the applicant has not qualified the selection as per the norms laid down by the Railway Board, and his claim being considered, non-empanelment for the post of Goods Guard does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The OA is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.