Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bijay Kumar Babulal Paswan vs Union Of India . on 22 June, 2023
Bench: Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.9069/2016
BIJAY KUMAR BABULAL PASWAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 07032016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing his Writ Petition in which he had challenged the order dated 10042014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (in short, “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal had dismissed Original Application No.55 of 2011, which was the genesis of his grievance.
2. The appellant’s claim before the Tribunal was that he had enrolled for the Vocational Course on Railway Commercial (in short, the “VCRC”) Scheme, introduced in the early 90s. Petitioner applied for the VCRC scheme before completing his school education for the academic session 20012002. Petitioner passed the written test and was selected after interviews for the course itself, subject to his clearing the 12th standard. However, he failed his final board exams, and was hence ineligible to give the exam for the VCRC course in 2003. Thereafter, even though he successfully completed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND his Date: 2023.06.26 15:54:31 IST Reason: school education, he was unable to clear the VCRC course written exam until the seventh attempt in 2006. When he finally passed the exam on his 7th attempt, appellant contends that he 2 became eligible for the post of Commercial Clerk/Ticket Clerk in the Indian Railways. However, appellant was refused appointment by respondent authorities, which he then proceeded to challenge before the Tribunal.
3. Two issues arose for consideration of the Tribunal namely:
(i) that a candidate was required to qualify the written test initially in two attempts, which was subsequently increased to six attempts. However, the appellant admittedly did not qualify the written test within the stipulated upper limit of six attempts, and required a seventh shot at the exams to finally clear them.
(ii) The VCRC Scheme had already been discontinued by the Railway Board with effect from 04032005, prior to the appellant clearing the VCRC course exams.
4. The Tribunal, thus, turned down the appellant’s claim for appointment.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court but his Writ Petition has been dismissed with the following observations: “The CAT has also rightly nonsuited the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner on 15 September 2006, when the petitioner's representation was rejected by the respondents. In terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the petitioner was required to institute his original application within a period of one 3 year from the date of accrual of cause of action, i.e., on or before 14 September 2007. However, the petitioner, instituted original application only in the year 2008 and that too before the Patna Bench, which lacked territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, cannot claim benefit of the delay condonation order made by the Patna Bench of CAT, once, it is held by the very Bench that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original application.”
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. Having given due consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order and judgment passed by the Tribunal and the High Court, respectively.
8. Firstly, it appears to us that the VCRC Scheme in question fell afoul of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. Direct recruitment to public employment must be preceded by a transparent recruitment process and not merely on the basis of qualifying a vocational course.
10. Secondly, the appellant could not fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the said Scheme due to having failed the written exam six times and, hence, no perceived right ever accrued in his favour.
11. Thirdly, by the time the appellant qualified the written test, the Scheme itself had been revoked and withdrawn, and the appellant 4 could not seek to have a mandamus issued to reintroduce the scheme for his own benefit to gain himself employment.
12. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
………………………………………………J (SURYA KANT) ………………………………………………J (M.M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI 22ND JUNE, 2023.
5
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.6 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.9069/2016
BIJAY KUMAR BABULAL PASWAN Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 22062023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Appeal is dismissed, in terms of the signed Order.
(VISHAL ANAND) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)