Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shri Arvind Kumar Deo And Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 July, 2015
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
Form no. J(2)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Nishita Mhatre
And
The Hon'ble Justice Asha Arora
W.P.C.T 416 of 2013
Shri Arvind Kumar Deo and others
...Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and others
...Respondents
For the petitioners: Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty
For the respondents: Mr. Malay Kumar Das
Mr. Anirban Dutta
Heard on: 02.07.2015
Judgment on: 13.07.2015
Asha Arora, J.:
1. The writ petitioners claim to be qualified persons who have been working in the Eastern Railway as Trackman which is Grade 'D' post. It is their contention that after long years of service they got a chance as per notification dated 15/03/2010 for formation of a panel for the post of Senior Supervisor (P. Way) in the Engineering Department through the process of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short referred to as LDCE). The petitioners being the eligible candidates were selected to appear for the written examination which was held on 27/11/2010. Further contention of the petitioners is that the result of the said examination was not published for a long time but it was learnt that the selection for the post of Senior PWS has been cancelled by the competent authority on the ground of procedural defect and that it was ordered to process the above selection further as a 'fresh assessed vacancy'. According to the petitioners, they had secured qualifying marks in the written test held on 27/11/2010 and their names had been listed as successful candidates. In spite of this, the respondents had published another notification on 24/10/2011 inviting applications for the post of Senior Supervisor (P. Way) in the engineering department through the process of LDCE. The cancellation of the selection in response to notification issued on 15/03/2010 was malafide as no reason was assigned by the respondents as required by the judgment and order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench dated 21/03/2002 passed in O.A 359/2001 and the Ministry of Railways, Rail Mantralaya (Rail Board) circular dated 03/07/2002. With these assertions the writ petitioners filed the Original Application No. 1041 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench praying for a direction upon the respondents to give promotion to the successful candidates from Group - 'D' to Group - 'C' as per notification dated 15/03/2010. The petitioners also sought for a direction upon the respondents to cancel, withdraw or rescind the subsequent notification dated 24/10/2011 regarding the self-same matter.
2. Admitting the fact that the petitioners are employees of Eastern Railway working as Trackman, the respondents countered in their reply before the Tribunal as well as in their affidavit in opposition filed in this Court that the result of the written examination was not declared and the panel was not published as there was violation of Railway Board's norms (CPO/KKK's Serial No. 217 of 1999) and the guidelines for selection which state that at least 10% of total marks prescribed in the written test should be on the official language policy and rules. The respondents also did not dispute that the selection made as per notification dated 15/03/2010 was cancelled due to procedural defects and this was intimated to the Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Howrah, and all the departments under Howrah Division, Eastern Railway. Therefore there was no ill motive on the part of respondents to hold fresh selection process by issuing another notification dated 24/10/2011 in response to which applications have been received from the staff of Engineering Department of Howrah Division as well as from the petitioners. In spite of having their names in the list of eligible candidates for the fresh selection process the petitioners filed Original Application No. 1041 of 2011 before the Tribunal.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application vide order dated 30/07/2013 with the following observation:
"Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the circulars relating to the guidelines for selection, we are of the view that LDCE relating to notification dated 15/03/2010 was rightly cancelled since the question paper set for the LDCE was not in accordance with the guidelines. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to convince us that the instructions relating to inclusion of questions on Rajbhasa do not apply for the LDCE for selection for Group - 'D' level to Group - 'C' posts."
4. Aggrieved, the applicants challenged the aforesaid order dated 30/07/2013 mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in holding that the instructions relating to inclusion of questions on Rajbhasa apply for the LDCE for selection from Group - 'D' to Group - 'C' post.
5. Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners sought to impress upon us that the guidelines relating to Rajbhasa did not apply for selection from Group - 'D' level to Group - 'C' category. Therefore the cancellation of the selection process on the ground of alleged procedural defect is not justified.
6. On behalf of respondents, Mr. Malay Kumar Das submitted that the selection (LDCE) was for filling up the posts of Senior PWS in which the candidates who were eligible to be called were working in the railway in Grade Pay - 1900/-. It was not a selection from Group - 'D' to Group - 'C' as candidates who were working in Grade Pay - 1900/- were called along with those working in Grade Pay - 1800/- (erstwhile Group - 'D'). Mr. Das pointed out that the Mate in Grade Pay - 1900/- is all along a Group - 'C' post whereas the posts in Grade Pay - 1800/- have been classified as Group - 'C' post. It has been contended on behalf of respondents that as this was a selection for promotion from one post to another, the rules relating to setting questions on Rajbhasa, official language policy are applicable.
7. For the purpose of the instant writ petition we cannot lose sight of the general guidelines for the Members of the Selection Board for conducting selections issued vide Serial No. 149/2008 dated 27/11/2008. The instructions for paper setters given under the heading (B) is significant and the relevant instruction with which we are concerned reads thus: "(f) 10% of the total marks should be given for questions on Rajbhasha, official language policy and official language rules. The question on 'Rajbhasha' will be optional and not compulsory. (SL. No.15/1995)." Evidently the selection on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination as per notification dated 15/03/2010 was cancelled since the questions for the said examination were not set in accordance with the above mentioned guidelines of the Railway Board. There is no substance in the argument on behalf of the writ petitioners that the instructions relating to inclusion of questions on Rajbhasa do not apply for the selection from Group - 'D' to Group - 'C' posts. The writ petitioners did not dispute the respondents' categorical averment in Paragraph - 4 of the affidavit in opposition that presently they are in Grade Pay - 1800/- and that candidates who were working in Grade Pay - 1900/- were also called along with those in Grade Pay - 1800/- (erstwhile Group - 'D'). Therefore the rules relating to question on Rajbhasa, official language policy and official language referred to hereinabove are clearly applicable to the said selection.
8. Pursuant to the foregoing discussion we are of the firm view that the impugned order dated 30/07/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not call for any interference.
9. The writ petition (W.P.C.T. 416 of 2013) being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Interim order if any, stands vacated.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of judgment if applied for, shall be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Asha Arora, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, J.)