Karnataka High Court
Sri.Madhusudana Rao S/O Bhaskar Rao ... vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.107503/2018 (S - PRO)
Between
Shri Madhusudana Rao
Gollamudi, Age 52 years
Occ: Member RPF, r/o Shalni Park
Gadag Road, Hubballi-580020. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Jagadish Patil, Advocate)
And
1. Union of India
Represented by Director
General/RPF Railway Board
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan
New Delhi - 100001.
2. The Director General/RPF
Railway Board, Rail Bhavan
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Principal Chief Security
Commissioner, RPF, SCR
Secunderabad, Rail Nilayam
Secunderabad, Telangana-500071.
4. The Principal Chief Security
Commissioner, RPF, SWR, Gadag
Road, Hubballi-580020.
2
5. Shri Ravish Kumar Tyagi
Age 59 years, Occ: Assistant
Commandant, RPSF Head
Quarters, Dayabasti, New Delhi-110035.
6. Shri Madan Singh
Age 62 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant (Regd), 6th Battalion
RPSF, Dayabasti, New Delhi - 110035.
7. Shri Gyanendra Dutt Pandey
Age 58 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, Railway
Protection Force, Kanpur
Uttar Pradesh-208001.
8. Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Age 54 years, Occ;Assistant
Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force
DRM Office Complex, Jodhpur
Rajasthan, PIN:342001.
9. Shri Abhay Pratap Singh
Age 54 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 9th Battalion
RPSF, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar
Haryana-135001.
10. Shri Kamaleshwar Singh
Age 52 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF, DLW
Varanasi-221004.
11. Shri Vinod Tewari
Age 61 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
GM Office, NC Railway
Subedarganj, Allahabad-211015.
3
12. Shri Ajay Jyoti Sharma
Age 54 years, Occ; Assistant Security
Commissioner, RPF, JR RPF Academy
Talkatora Road, Lucknow-226005.
13. Shri Ugrasen Singh
Age 53 years, Occ; Assistant Security
Commissioner, (Sports), RPF
4th Floor, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road
New Delhi - 110001
14. Shri Jai Bhagwan
Age 59 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 8th Battalion
RPSF, CLW,Chittaranjan
Dist: Burdwan, Pin:713365.
15. Shri Rama Shankar Singh
Age 53 years, Occ; Inspector of RPF
Sr.DSC Office, DRM Office Complex
Ambala, Punjab, Pin:133001.
16. Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla
Age 64 years, Occ; Assistant Security
Commissioner, RPF, Divisional Railway
Managers Office, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
17. Shri Abhay Singh
Age 57 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, BCTC, 6th Battalion
RPSF, Dayabasti, New Delhi-110035.
18. Shri Vishok Gupta
Age 52 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
Ground Floor, Railway Board
Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
4
19. Shri Anil Kumar Sen
Age 58 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
DRM Office Complex, Ambala-133001.
20. Shri Asimi Kumar Kulloo
Age 52 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 10th Battalion
RPSF, Dhanbadi, (Jharkhand)
Pin:826001.
21. Shri Virender Kumar Mishra
Age 54 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
DRM Office, NE Railway
Lucknow-226001.
22. Shri Babulal Massoriya
Age 59 years, Occ; Asst. Security
Commissioner, FLY Protection Force
RLY Station, Jalandhar Cantt
Punjab - 144005.
23. Shri Shahney Haider
Age 54 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 15th Battalion
RPSF, Udhampur, J and K
Pin Code : 182101.
24. Shri Dharam Raj Ram
Age 54 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
Railway Station, Haridwar
Uttarakhand-249401.
25. Shri Sarif Mohammad
Age 55 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
Railway Station, Guna, MP-473001.
5
26. Shri Indu Prakash Singh
Age 55 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
RDSO, Manaknagar, Lucknow -
226011.
27. Shri Deep Chandra Arya
Age 51 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
HEAD Quarters, Delhi (East)
Northern Railway, New Delhi-
110001.
28. Shri Brij Kishor Ram
Age 56 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 3rd Battalion
RPSF, Talkatora Road
Lucknow - 226005.
29. Shri Surendra Pratap Singh
Age 55 years, Occ; Inspector of
RPF, SIB, Sr.DSC Office, DRM
Office Complex (Northern Railway)
Lucknow - 226001.
30. Shri Omprakash Meena
Age 57 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
RPF Training Centre, Bandikui
Rajsthan - 303313.
31. Shri Dayashankar Ram
Age 56 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, DRM
Office Complex, GT Road
Lahartara Boulia, Bazardiha
Maheshpur, NE Railway
Varanasi-221002.
6
32. Shri Balak Ram
Age 56 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
O/Opcsc, NE Rly Head Quarters
Gorakhpur, Uttara Pradesh-273012.
33. Shri Syam Lal
Age 56 years, Occ; Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF
O/o PCSC, NE Rly Head Quarters
Gorakhpur, Uttara Pradesh-273012.
34. Shri Dharam Veer Singh
Age 55 years, Occ; Assistant
Commandant, 15th Battalion
RPSF, Udhampur, J and K
Pin Code-182101.
35. Shri Nagender Kumar
Age 55 years, Occ; Inspector of RPF
Cash Office, Railway Station
Northern Railway, Lucknow-221002.
36. Shri Ajay Raj Pal Singh
Age 58 years, Occ; Inspector of RPF
Railway Station, Rampur, Uttara
Pradesh-244901. ... Respondents
(By Sri Ajay U Patil, Advocate for R1 to R4,
Sri Gangadhar J M, Advocate for R8 to 10, 17, 18, 24, 25 and 27,
R-18, 23, 31, 32, 34 - served,
R5, 6, 7, 11, 13 to 16, 19 to 23, 26, 29, 30, 33 to 37 service held sufficient)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned combined
seniority list circulated dated 28.9.2018 in No.2018/SEC(E) SR-
2/8 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A.
This writ petition coming on for further hearing this day,
the Court passed the following:
7
ORDER
Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force on 9.9.1990. The private respondents were appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force on 4.7.1989.
2. On 7.4.1994, the 2nd respondent - Railway Board issued a notification for the purpose of counting training period for the length of service for promotion to the post of Inspectors. Thereafter, the private respondents were selected as Inspector on 19.9.1997. Petitioner was selected as Inspector on 10.9.1998. However, the selection of the petitioner as Inspector was approved on 20.9.1998 and the selection of private respondents as Inspectors were approved by the panel on 9.11.1998.
3. The 2nd respondent published a provisional combined seniority list on 10.6.2005, wherein the name of the petitioner was placed above the private respondents. Again, the 2nd respondent published a provisional combined seniority list on 20.3.2006, in which the petitioner was was placed above the 8 names of the private respondents. The final combined seniority list was published on 7.4.2014 and the name of the petitioner was placed above the name of the private respondents.
4. When the things stood thus, one of the private respondents submitted a representation to the National Commission for Schedule Cases (for short `NCSC') on 11.6.2014 so as to set right the anomaly in not counting the training period for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector.
5. The 2nd respondent on the direction of the NCSC passed an order on 16.3.2017 approving the promotion of private respondents for the post of Inspector with effect from 29.10.1997 by counting the training period and consequently, the provisional combined seniority list on 24.5.2017 in which the names of the private respondents were placed above the petitioner. Petitioner questioned the provisional combined seniority list in WP No.103308/2018, but however, the said writ petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent published a final combined seniority list of Inspectors on 28.4.2018, which is questioned in this writ petition. 9
6. Learned counsel of the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent promoting the private respondents with effect from 29.10.1997 and so also the final combined seniority list published by the 2nd respondent on 28.9.2018 is in violation of principles of natural justice since no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order on 16.3.2017 as well as the publication of combined seniority list which has adversely affected the seniority of the petitioner. He further submits that the 2nd respondent revised the seniority list after lapse of more than nineteen years which is not permissible in law . In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1) HSS Vankani and others -vs- State of Gujrat and others reported in (2010) 4 SCC 301;
2) Union of India and others -vs- Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798;
3) A decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.852/2020 in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, UP Power Corporation Ltd. & others -vs-
Ram Gopal;
4) The Chairman, State Bank of India & another -vs- M J James in Civil Appeal No.8223/2009;
10
7. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that the 2nd respondent by counting the training period has rightly promoted the private respondents with effect from 29.10.1997. He further submits that the delay should be reckoned from the date of publication of final seniority list and not from the date of approval of promotion to the post of Inspectors. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of G P Doval & ors. - vs- Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 329, L Chandrakishore Singh -vs- State of Manipur & ors reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287 and T Aruna and others -vs- Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 54.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the order passed by the 2nd respondent promoting the private respondents to the post of Inspectors with effect from 29.10.1997 is perfectly legal since the training period was not counted for reckoning the length of service in view of Rule 63(1) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Hence, 11 he submits that the final combined seniority list of Inspectors is in accordance with the said Rules. He further submits that Rule 102 of the said Rules specifies that a member of the Force may represent to the appointing authority about his seniority position within a period of one year from the date of publication of the seniority list. Hence, he submits that the petitioner having not represented within a period one year is not entitled to challenge the impugned final seniority list as well as the order dated 16.3.2017.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are:
a) Whether the 2nd respondent could have
approved the selection of the private
respondents with effect from 29.10.1997 after long gap of nearly twenty years?
b) Whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent approving the selection of private respondents and consequently publishing the 12 final seniority list without issuing notice to the petitioner is permissible in law?
11. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was working as Sub- Inspector, was promoted to the post of Inspector on 10.9.1998 by counting the training period for the purpose of counting the length of service. However, the private respondents though were selected on 19.9.1997, their promotions were approved with effect from 9.11.1998. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent published the provisional combined seniority list of Inspectors by reckoning the date of promotion for the purpose of fixing the seniority of Inspectors. Admittedly, neither the petitioner nor private respondents filed any objection to the said provisional combined seniority list and the 2nd respondent published the final combined seniority list of Inspectors on 7.4.2014. It is only thereafter one of the private respondents submitted a representation on 11.6.2014 so as to set right the anomaly in not counting the training period for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector. However, the said representation was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 31.7.2014 vide Annexure-R3. The private respondents complained to the NCSC alleging that 13 they have been deprived of seniority because of inaction of the 2nd respondent in not counting their training period for the purpose of granting promotion.
12. On the complaint lodged by the private respondents, the NCSC directed the 2nd respondent so as to count the training period for reckoning the length of service. In pursuance of the direction issued by the NCSC, the 2nd respondent passed an order on 16.3.2017 approving the selection of the private respondents from 29.10.1997 and consequently published the final combined seniority list placing the names of the private respondents above the petitioner. Admittedly, before passing the order approving the selection of the private respondents with effect from 29.10.1997, the 2nd respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner and also published the final selection seniority list of Inspectors altering the seniority of the petitioner without issuing notice to the petitioner which has adversely affected the rights of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent approving the selection of the private respondents to the post of Inspectors with effect from 14 29.10.1997 and so also the final combined seniority list of Inspectors published on 28.9.2018 are held to be in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned final combined seniority list of Inspector published on 28.9.2018 by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A and so also the order dated 16.3.2017 vide Annexure-C1 passed by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed insofar it relates to private respondents.
iii) The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the claim of private respondents for approving their selection to the post of Inspectors with effect from 29.10.1997 in accordance with law and also in the light of the decision of the Apex Court (supra).
iv) It is needless to say that before considering the claim of the private respondents, the 2nd respondent is required to notify the petitioner and consider the objection if submitted by the Petitioner including the question of delay.15
v) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm