Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs M.Nagaraj on 23 November, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT 012* KARNATAKA AT V' '2 V.
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMEEREOGQ 7
PRESENT -
THE I-ION'BLE MR. p.13. DINAKARAN, {5§IIIEEJJJIIfS'1§I<:Ev
_ V
THE I-ION'BLE MR._JUSTIQI_§i'V,G;$ABfiAHIT
WRIT PETITION' E<$;3?i366_i3d'o9~ (f$»CAT)
BETWEEN ' -
1. THE DIvIs1o1\IAL'««I?ERs0NNEL O'FFICER_....~
PERSONNE_I,.B.RAi§IC.H ._
SOUTH WESTERN 'RA.ILWAjf;r. '
BANGAI,Q_RE.¢'5I:Q_Q23.,_'= "
2. THE UNI01\I.oP'I:\IDIA.. -- -
REP. BY_I'I'S_ GENERA.L'E»MA-MADE
SOUTH WESTERN. RAILWAY,'
HUBLI--~«58Q._02.0. ._ ...PETIT1ONERS
(13¥_sRI. DEv'AD.As, SR;---ADI/_¢..»A/W SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
FOR" M/SA'_..._NYAYAM1TRA ADVOCATES}
SHRI M, I\'ACrARA.J,
'E*--A...s/o (LATE) P. MARIAPPAN,
AGED ABc;~--U'r~50 'YEARS,
_ c_AsUAL~~LABoUR, DHARMAPURI DIVN,
" SOUTPLWLESTERN RAILWAY,
, f.'R/'O..MUTi~I.UGOUDAN KOTTA1 VILLAGE,
_ 'ERE.A:IAH.A1:LI 13.0, PALACODE TALUK,
v gDI»IARM;APUR1DIsTRIcT -636 808. RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES:V2§I:6T.V& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO __f_CALL_';'~-FTC?"-{__"I_ RECORDS IN OA. No. 228/07 ON THE FILE OF, 'THE CAT, BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATI9N':"~.vOF_ THE MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, EANc3ALORE BEI-IcH..DT.v--, 6.5.09 IN OA. No. 228/07 VIDE ANN-A AND DISMISS. oA;..__NO.., 228 /07 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THIS WRIT PETITION COMIf-iG"'~...UP POR .ORDE1R'S-; wTjI~IIS " D DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F'"OVi.LC)WINVG~:¢ - ' o rRfIDj»iB1.f D' (Delivered by it it This writ petition Diyiisional Personnel Officer, South another respondent in Original ApplicatiOnv."NO_H228,(i20.07 on the file of the Central Administrative u,Tribanal""..V(h.e:reinafter referred to as 'CAT') Bangalore ; Bench; BarigaIor'e, being aggrieved by the order wherein, the CAT has allowed the applio'atiO_nIii _'gr;a1ited the prayer of the applicant by VJdirectingi'thev--._'respondent No.1-~the first appellant herein to Du4"born*piieteP__the""exercise of absorption of Ex.CL's against the Group 'D' posts in the manner explained in §f"~--M-.:'\§.
paragraph--16 of the order within a period of three from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Heard the learned counsel appearingfor and the learned counsel appearing for _
3. The challenge made in petition sifgnilar to the one raised and consid'eréd in Writ Petition No.29767/2009, wherein this_Cf1o1,1rt,l by order dated 13th November 2009 disposed of said writ petition. In the said writ itlnbservedi ashereunder:
"l0. 'fh_e on record would clearly sheyvithat of the respondent- appllicant befo*r.eV_V'the Tribunal is 25/12/1955 and initially ilenligiaged as casual labour on L' lvEl3[8/A "The material on record would even as per the intimation sent by '«.the__" 'petitioner herein, the name of the l"».applicant was shown in the live register when the '*:l:"lntin*iation was sent on 22 /7/2003 as per i it-Xnneixure 'A-3' annexed to the application. It is "clearly stated that the name of the applicant is it available in the live/supplementary register and If-"""\' he has been already asked to attend for screening on 30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railiyayl"-:4"'*. Institute, Bangalore. Further contents;-t of i"
Annexure 'A-5' would clearly show that in~ithe::l.is't~.: r of Casual Labourers eligible entered in the live register and the: V' applicant has also been sholwrl, Furtheig the that applicant had been calleiddforpp screening fdr absorption of casual his has been found in the isnllotvliidisputed by the applicant,__ letters Annexures fA._g~1';7to_.'A,e3' were_.cancelled since the educationally prescribed for absorptiorii it for the purpose of absorptionéland Woi:ld»~ only in case of initial appointment. "
{the rna't'eria1 on record would clearly 'show that 'there is no merit in the contention of itthe.._petiitior1er~i,.that the applicants were called for scre.ening only for the purpose of preparing fresh *.,live regipslter as the intimation would fairly show it lllreferred to above that the name of the .l applicant had already been entered in the live 4:-Sgister and he had been called for absorption of casual labourers. The only ground upon which the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of the applicant for absorption is age limit. clear from the Railway Board Master No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as JfQ11ows:_»'W"
"At the time of screerziingififficasual labour relaxation in ageflsltould "be'~ , . automatic if it is establisheclthat individual was within the"presc'ribed.Vage ' limit and had been more or less regularly 2 working. In old . case,<:,*"* u)here__ the age limit was not obs_e'rvea'._, relaxratioriiof age should be considered'e..s'gmpathetically. The CPOS, 'and ' "me i_Chief Engineers.:(Cons€.'ruction} _ re"Comp.ei'ent to grant the rejlaxati»oniin"age".,_
12. ea CP.Q's, am; and the Chief Engines-rs-- (Cvonsti*nction)_."areicompetent to grant relaxation. pmade" is" nc.t:.di.sputed by the petitioner. F'urther,_ to the fact that the case of ..v_Athe?1appA1iAcant belor'e"'the Tribunal is for absorption .,notvifo1fwiriiitia1 appointment. What is required to is as to whether the appointment of A c.asu__aI was within the prescribed age *._1ir.ait Wheé-n initially recruited as a casual labour it i[_'the fact that when the petitioner was initially .' engaged as a casual labour, he was within the age liznit was not disputed as the date of birth of the applicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is on 16/8/1979. The applicant has substantiated before the Tribunal that though§'_:his«'v:- r.- name was found in the register he was_Mr__1o't~-...re~.ff engaged and persons who were junior to hi«rt_i"ir1 V 7 the list were engaged and thereforefthe after detail consideration"ll_o--f_p the-._ above'|.¥3aid_V material on record has held tHat_"the applicVati'onl'of the applicant for rejected erroneously and issued' toacoirriplete the exercise of absorption' "of iaabourers against the_avai1i.ablev::'79iGroup "l')""--posts in the manner exjplainedvin culied out above. 1.13. i' stlie above said facts of the casefthe circtdar isstied by the petitioner and Master Circui'ar_V E\Io.4V8 and also having regard to . i'"-the*~fact'<that matetiaii on record clearly show that 11;:-'it1J'1SA applicant had already been included in the 'live:-.regi'ster and his application has been reje'cteci:onljz on the ground of age and absorption has declined only on the ground of age, _is clearly erroneous and contrary to the circular issued by the petitioner as referred to "above. The Tribunal has issued direction as impugned in this writ petition. That having regard to the above said materiai on record, we satisfied that the finding of the Tribuna.1.._"¢'i'st'u' justified and does not suffer from any error . illegaiity as to call for interference exercit=;¢.hf~ the writ jurisdiction of this Cour'; A' we hold that the writ petition isidevoid Qf.'rmeti't and pass the fol1owing:-- _ The writ peitirioniis
4. Hence, followirig by us in Writ Petition No.29'Z6~7:';'2(§§i:)::'3f'. '(d:is_1a'osedt" hf 18--1i-2009), as referred to supra, ~pe'ti_1;ion_' is also liable to be dismissed. Accordi_ri'gIy,'it_isvdiszfiissed. No order as to costs. Sd/~ Chiei Easérica Sd/"
JUDGE In 2 ' Liridexz H V 'Web PfoSt.2_ Yes / N 0 ._} Snb/"w_