Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Kollipara Prasad vs South Central Railway on 22 June, 2022
Fiteteeneesed CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH OA/020/324/2022 HYDERABAD, this the 22°" day of June, 2022 fens Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member } \Hon"*ble Mr. KV. Eapen, Admn. Member SE Kollipara .Prasad, S'o. Bodeiah, aged 53 Years, Loco Pilot(Mail), Ofo Chief Crew Controller' GNT D.Nas5-3- 196, Kodandaramaih Nagar, ist ine, Chuttugunta, Gunter, Andhra Pradesh. . Appheant (By advocate : Mir. G. Trinadha Rao} Vs. 1. Union of India Rep by The General Manager, Sauth Central Rathway, Ralnilavam, Secunderabad NM The Principal Chief Personnel Oficer, Sattb Central Rathway, Rainuiayam, Secunderabad. The Divisional Railway Manager, Guntur Division, South Central Railw ay, Crmhur. tad 4. The Sr, Divisional Personnes! Officer, Crintur Division, South Central Railway, Guntur, .. Respondents (By Advoeate: Sri A. Sreanivas, Addl. COGSC} OA/S24/ 2022 Arce ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Katia, Judl. Member) The present OLA. is filed seeking the follawing reliefs:
_to oul far the recards rélatine to aud connected witht the notification issued in No LOR YPYGNT? PVA Cadre Ch LiVol-lil dated §9.01.2022 at Annexure-
I declare and set aside the same as illegal arbitrary and comrary io law and ii} consequently direct the respondent fo finalise the selection pursuant fo the notification issued in Ne SCRAYGNT; 2EMG Cadre Ch LUV ol -H dated 2P. U3 2020at Annexure-2 at the earliest and pass such ather order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of pustice."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, is working as a Loco Pilot (Mad) in Guntur. It is submitted that the 4° respondent has issued a notification dated 275.2020 for selection to the post ef Chief Loco Inspector (R-5), calling volunteers from Loco Running Staff viz Loco Pilot (Mail, Loco Pilot (Pass) and Loco Pilot (Goods), who have completed 5 lakh kms of actual foot plate duties or have completed 10 years of actual service as Loce Pilot. The applicant, having fulfilled the eligibility criteria, responded to the notification. [t is contended by the applicant that while the said notification is yet to be taken to a logical conclusion and the selection process is yet to be completed, the 4" respondent again issued another notification dated 19.1.2022. notifying UR-G, SC-1 and Si-T vacancies of Chief Loca Inspectors, including the 5 UR vacancies > 4 SeRQ EO Rett nae v gee eo oe waaay aries Pp tR Sy og. a.
OAA/S 24/2022 notified m the earlier notification dated 27.5.2020. By virtue of the ge notification, the Loco Pilots, who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as on the date preserthed in the 1° notification dated 27.5,.2020, are now made cligible for the § 5S UR vacancies, which were notified earlier in the 1 notification. According to the applicant, the said action of the respondents is contrary to law as the selection in pursuance of the 1° notification has not yet been Nnalized. The action of the respondents in issuing 2" notification is arbitrary exercise of powers conferred on the respondents to facilitate particular segment of candidates to bring them within the purview. of eligibility detriment to the interests of the employees, who responded to the 1" notification is the claim of the appheant.
3, Notices were issued and Sei A. Sreenivas, learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and argued the matter. He has raised objection that the applicant has directly approached this Tribunal withorat exhausting the departmental remedy available to him Le. making ar epresen tation to the respondent authorities ventilating his grievance. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the applicant has availed the apportunity of undergoing 4 training imparted to the SC/ST candidates. He has firrther argued that the applicant has not objected to the cancellation of the 1 notification dated 27.5.2020 and has accepted the 2" notification dated 19.1,.2022.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
3, It is evident that the present Original Application is barred by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 2001) of A.T. Act reads as under:
"20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted --
(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available fo him under the relevant service rules ax to redressai of grievances. "
6. The applicant has approached this Tribunal, without exhausting the remedies available to him. Therefore, we are of the view that this O.A. should be dismissed with costs. However, we are taking a lenient view. The Original Application, being hit by Section 20 of ALY. Aet, is hereby rejected. The applicant is granted liberty to take legal recourse, afier making representation to the respondent authorities.
There shall be no order as to costs.
: yee dyad} ys Powis Lob So eA AST ED Jong 2 ete nantes repent