Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anil Kumar Mishra Aged About 42 Years Son ... vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2011
Reserved CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011) Honble Dr.K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) Honble Mr. S.N. Shukla, Member (A) Original Application No.619 of 2007 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Anil Kumar Mishra aged about 42 years Son of Shri Vishambhar Nath Mishra Resident of Subhash Nagar Sood Building, Bareilly. 2. Surendra Singh aged about 40 years Son of Shri Ram Jeen Singh Resident of T/5-C, South Colony Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 3. Jaipal Puri aged about 42 years Son of Shri Ganpat Puri Resident of Behind Shiv Mandir Mani Nath Bareilly. 4. Pradeep Kumar Bagchi aged about 42 years Son of Shri N.C. Bagchi, Resident of L/3-A, North Colony, Loco Shed, Bareilly. 5. Daya Shankar, aged about 49 years Son of Shri Hari Lal Resident of Near Normal School Biju Bhatti, Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 6. Jagan Lal aged about 42 years Son of Shri Tej Ram Resident of Village Mirzapur Ram Ganga Bareilly. 7. Ashok Kumar-II, aged about 50 years Son of Shri Fakir Chand Resident of Kali Charan Road, Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 8. Sayed Anwar Ali, aged about 39 years, Son of Shri Maqdoom Ali, Resident of Chaudhary Tola Qila Road Bareilly. 9. Pradeep Kumar Sharma aged about 45 years Son of Shri Girija Shankar Sharma Resident of Ganesh Nagar, Nekpur, Bareilly. 10. Vinod Prasad, aged about 38 years, Son of Shri Ram Dayal Prasad Resident of 7/2, Golden Green Park Bareilly. 11. Kamal Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Shri Gulab, Resident of Chiriya Tola, Bareilly. 12. Ravindra Rai aged about 51 years, Son of Shri T.S. Rai, Resident of Mohalla Bhund, Bareilly. 13. Mohd. Salim Siddiqui, aged about 40 years, Son of Shri M.A.R. Siddiqui, Resident of Baradan, P.S. Bareilly. 14. Hari Pal Singh aged about 43 years Son of Shri Puttu Resident of L/17 GH South Colony, Bareilly. 15. Atul Kumar Srivastava aged about 35 years Son of Shri Rajendra Narayan Resident of Awadh Puri, Bateilly. 16. Om Prakash aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Bhagwan Das Resident of Near Loco Hospital Bareilly. 17. Hoshyar Singh aged about 47 years Son of Shri Nathu Singh Resident of Loco Shed, Bareilly. 18. Surendra Pal aged about 47 years Son of Shri Salig Ram Resident of Sood Building subhash Nagar Bareilly. 19. Mnindra Singh aged bout 48 years, Son of Shri Shyam Singh Resident of H.No. 596, Tiwariji Akhara, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. 20. Afif Ali aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Khan Ali Khan Resident of Phuta Darwaja Bara Bazar Bareilly. 21. Pujan Ram aged about 45 years, Son of Shri Jalim Ram, Resident of L/1; Loco Shed, Bareilly. 22. Roshan Lal, aged about 37 years, Son of Shri Rameshwar Resident of Tilak Colony Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 23. Zafar Ali Khan aged about 50 years, Son of Shri Yusuf Ali Khan Resident of 384 Singh Burf Khana, Qila Road, Bareilly. 24. Kubin Ali aged about 51 years Son of Shri Ghulam Ali Resident of T/259, South Colony Bareilly. 25. Rajesh Kumar aged about 48 years Son of Shri Munari Lal, Resident of Awadh Puri Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 26. Lajja Ram aged abaout 48 years Son of Shri Maiku Lal Resident of L-7-A, South Colony Barielly. 27. Satish Kumar Mishra aged about 48 years Son of Shri Suraj Prasad Rersident of Lal Phatak Chanehti Bareilly. 28. Narendra Kumar-II, aged about 51 years Son of Shri Brij Kishor, Resident of Tapeshwar Nath Mandir, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. 29. Mohd. Naim aged about 47 years, Son of Mohd. Atiq Resident of Dulhe Miyan Ki Mazar Bareilly. 30. Ram Chandra aged about 50 years Son of Shri Pyare Lal, Resident of 122, Raviundra Nagar, Bareilly. 31. Virendra Pal Singh Yadav, aged about 38 years Son of Shri Gulfan Singh Yadav Resident of 1265 Mani Nath Bareilly. 32. Vindo Kumar=III, aged about 51 years Son of Shri Babu Ram Resident of 364 Bihari Pur Thal Chaupla Bareilly. 33. Sunahari Smith aged about 40 years Son of Shri G. Smith Resident of Near Tapeshwar Temple Subhash Nagar Bareilly. 34. Banshi Lal aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Vishram, Resident of Railway Colony, Balamau. 35. Daya Ram aged about 41 years Son of Shri Hem Raj Resident of Railway Colony, Balamau. 36. Madan Mohan aged about 48 years Son of Shri Raja Ram Resident of Railway Colony Balamau. 37. Shiv Ram aged about 50 years Son of Shri Gaya Deen Resident of Railway Colony Balamau. 38. Santosh Kumar Mishra aged about 49 years son of Shri Swami Dayal Mishra Resident of Railway Colony Balamau. 39. Shayam Kumar aged about 57 years Son of Shri Baldev Prasad Resident of L/4-B, Loco Shed, Balamau. 40. Santosh Kumar aged about 48 years Son of Shri Bhoja Singh Resident of 15-L, Railway Colony Rauza. 41. Ramesh Chandra-III aged about 49 years Son of Shri Mangali Prasad Resident of 16-L, Railway Colony Rauza. 42. Shiv Nath aged about 48 years Son of Shri Shobha Ram Resident of 45-A, Koyala Colony, Rauza. 43. Abdul Naim aged about 44 years Son of Shri Abdul Latif, Railway Colony, Rauza. 44. Amrit Lal aged about 44 years Son of Shri Ram Ratan Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 45. Ajay Kumar aged about 34 years Son of Shri Babu Lal Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 46. Ashok Kumar aged about 50 years Son of Shri Bhagwan Deen Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 47. Amar Chandra aged about 47 years Son of Shri Lalta Prasad Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 48. Asha Ram aged about 49 years Son of Shri Luxman Prasad Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 49. Bhagat Ram agedabout 44 years Son of Shri Shiv Lal, Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 50. V.K. Mishra aged about 40 years Son of Shri Ram Kishor Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 51. Bhagwati Prasad aged about 51 years, Son of Shri Sohan Lal Residentof Railway Colony, Rauza. 52. Brij Pal Sing aged about 49 years Son of Shri Ghanshyam Singh Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 53. Chhedi Lal aged bout 43 years Son of Shri Tekam Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 54. Chandra Kumar aged about 35 years Son of Shri Jagannath Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 55. Dinesh Chand aged about 47 years Son of Shri Ram Sahai Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 56. Data Ram aged about 47 years Son of Shri Mewa Ram Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 57. Gaya Lal aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Ganga Charan Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 58. Jag Pal Singh aged about 49 years Son of Shri Raghuraj Singh Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 59. Khushi Ram aged bout 49 years Son of Shri Mata Deen Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 60. Malikhan aged about 53 years, Son of Shri Manohar Lal, Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 61. Madan Pal-I, aged about 47 years Son of Shri Sundar Lal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 62. Mool Chand aged about 48 years Son of Shri Jokhe Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 63. Nepal Singh aged about 48 years Son of Shri Dal Chand Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 64. Prem Pal Singh aged bout 49 years Son of Shri Subedar Singh Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 65. Pyare Lal aged about 55 years Son of Shri Sukh Lal Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 66. Ram Pal aged about 47 years Son of Shri Nanhu Lal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 67. Ram Mohan Awasthi aged about 36 years Son of Sant Kumar Awasthi Resident of Railway Colony Raruza. 68. Ram Autar aged about 42 years Son of Shri Kedar Nath Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 69. Ram Khelawan aged about 42 years Son of Shri Badlu Prasad Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 70. Ram Lal Meena aged about 48 years Son of Shri Chanda Ram Meena, Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 71. Rajendra Kumar aged about 49 years Son of Shri Ujagar Lal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 72. Ram Jeevan aged about 51 years, Son of Shri Chandra Pal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 73. Sushil Kumar-III aged about 49 years Son of Shri Ram Dulare Mishra Resident of Railway Colony Rauza. 74. Roshan Lal, aged about 49 years Son of Shri Har Dayal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 75. Satya Prakash aged bout 47 years Son of Shri Hari Ram Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 76. Shiv Nath aged about 48 years Son of Shri Shobha Ram, Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 77. Udai Narayan aged about 52 years Son of Shri Mitan Ram Resident of Railway Colony, Raruza. 78. Rajendra Prakash aged about 47 years Son of Shri Babu Lal Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 79. Vimal Kishor aged about 51 years Son of Shri Baikunth Thakur, Resident of Railway Colony, Raruza. 80. Siya Ram aged about 44 years Son of Shri Jagnu, Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. 81. Ram Prasad, aged about 54 years, Son of Mishri Lal, Resident of Railway Colony, Rauza. . Applicants By Advocate: Shri T.S. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 4. Shri Ram Karan Singh Tyagi, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division Moradabad. Respondents By Advocates: Shri P. Mathur Shri K.P. Singh Along with Original Application No.262 of 2007 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Shailendra Kumar Raghav aged about 40 years Son of Shri Beer Singh Raghav, Resident of T-16-A, South Railway Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. 2. Om Prakash-II, aged about 38 years, Son of Shri Baldev Prasad Resident of L-12-C, Railway Colony, Balamau. 3. V.D. Pathak aged about 39 years Son of Shri Prem Raj Pathak, Resident of 170-B, Railway Hospital Colony, Rauza. 4. Brij Pal Singh, aged about 41 years Son of Late Ram Lal, Resident of Qr. No.L-24-A, Northern Railway Colony, Bareilly Junction. 5. Rakesh Kumar Saxena aged about 41 years Son of Late Pyare Lal Resident of M.N. Zai Zalal Nagar, Shahjahanpur. 6. Pradeep Kumar Yadav aged bout 41 years Son of Late Raja Ram Yadav Resident of E-27/B, Northern Railway North Colony, Bareilly. 7. Om Prakash aged about 49 years Son of Ram Kumar Resident of Qr. No.69-A, Rauza Junction, Shahjahanpur. Applicants By Advocate: Shri T.S. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 4. Shri Ram Karan Singh Tyagi, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division Moradabad. 5. Raj Kumar Singh Rana a/a 41 years Son of late Sadan Singh R/o H. 43-A, Railway Marthala Colony, Moradabad. 6. Satish Kumar Jha aged about 39 yeas son of B.N. Jha Resident of 73-D Loco Shel Moradabad. 7. Brijendra Kumar II a/a 39 yeas S/o Sri Hari Shankar R/o A-22 Shakti Nagar Line Par Moradabad. 8. Ram Krishna II a/a 30 years S/o Sri R.P. Chaube R/o House No.69E. N. Rly Colony Moradabad. 9. Amit Dhussa a/a 40 years S/o R.N.Lal Dhussa R/o 29 Azad Nagar Gali, No.1 Moradabad. 10. Shushil Kumar Sharma II a/a 42 years S/o R.K. Sharma R/o BH/10 Mangaraver Colony Moradabad. 11. Harrindar Singh a/a 36 years S/o Late Balvir Singh R/o Harthala Colony Moradabad. 12. Rajveer Sharma a/a 35 years S/o J.K. Sharma R/o Kajal Vadshahganj Moradabad. 13. Sudhir Kumar a/a 37 years S/o Sri Sheo Narain R/o H.229B Rly. Harthala Moradabad. 14. Asim Kumar Mitra a/a 41 years S/o Sri Ajit Kumar Mistra R/o 38A Azad Nagar Gali No.2 Moradabad. 15. Chote Lal(I) a/a 35 years S/o late Triloki Ram R/o 99/B Gayatri Nagar Line Par Moradabd. 16. Chandra Shikhar Sagar a/a 40 yeas S/o Sri B.D. Sagar R/o 68-A, Rly Double Story Moradabad. 17. Bhim Sen Negi a/a 36 years S/o Late Gopal Singh Negi R/o Village & Post Tunwala Distt. Deharadun. 18. Priyendra Pal Singh a/a 34 years S/o Shri Ram Pal Singh R/o T-268 Rly. Colony Haridwar. 19. Vikas Bhatiya a/a 35 years S/o M.L. Bhatiya R/o Q. No.327 A. Rly Harthala Colony Moradabad. 20. Narottam Prakash Verma a/a 43 years S/o Late Nanhe Singh Verma R/o Line Par Chiriya Tola, Moradabad. 21. Rakesh Verma Chauhan a/a 36 years S/o Late Nanhe Singh R/o Rly. Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 22. Ravi Krishna Chaube a/a 32 years S/o R.P. Chaube R/o 68/A Rly Double Story Moradabad. 23. Ram Saran Lal, S/o Sri Mohan Lal R/o Q. No.10/1 Rly. Colony Roza Shahjahanpur. 24. Sunil Srivastava S/o Sri R.N. Srivastava R/o e 123 A Station Colony Roza Shajhajanpur. 25. Naveen Kumar Saxena S/o Sri S.P. Saxena R/o L115 B Rly Hospital Colony, Roza Shahjahanpur. 26. Umesh Chandra Agnihotri S/o M.D. Agniotri 186-B, Hospital Colony Shahjahanpur. 27. A.K. Singh S/o Sideshwar Singh R/o Q. No.190 B,Rly Colony Rauza Shahjahanpur. 28. Angad Pd. S/o Ram Sagiwan R/o Q. No.B.W. 106 Rly. Colony,Rauza Shahjahanpur. Respondents By Advocates: Shri P. Mathur Shri K.P. Singh Along with Original Application No.600 of 2007 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Raj Pal-I, aged about 42 years, Son of Shri Ram Charan, Resident of L-37-E, behind Railway Hospital Moradabad. 2. Ram Khelawan aged about 48 years son of Shri Mahadev Resident of C/o Sunil Kaushik Court Road Moradabad. 3. Arun Prasad Bhatnagar aged about 39 years Son of Shri Ramesh Prasad Resident of C/o Sunil Kaushik CourtRoad Moradabad. 4. Sunil Kaushik aged about 49 years Son of Shri Narottam Saran Resident of Court Road Moradabad. 5. Ashok Kumar Kashyap aged about 45 years Son of Khetal Prasad Resident of H-249-A Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 6. Arun Kumar Kataria aged about 45 years Son of Tapan Kumar Kataria Resident of M-18-B behind Railway Hospital Moradabad. 7. Vivek Sharma aged about 36 years Son of Shri S.B. Sharma Resident of Qr. No.H-241-A Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 8. Anil Kumar Sharma aged about 47 years Son of Shri Ram Kishan Sharma Resident of 36-A, behind Railway Hospital Moradabad. 9. Sanjiv jain aged about 37 years Son of Shri A.C. Jain Resident of L-36-D, Kapoor Campany Moradabad. 10. R.K. Nishad aged about 46 years Son of Shri Ram Kripal Resident of H-230-B, Railway Harthala Colony Moradabad. 11. Babu Lal Rajvanshi aged about 45 years Son of Shri Baldev Rajvanshi Resident of Line Par Hanuman Nagar Moradabad. 12. Ganesh Kumar aged about 36 years Son of Vishwanath Sharma Resident of 95, Prem Kuti Gali, Chandra Nagar, Moradabad. 13. Naresh Kumar aged about 36 years Son of Shri Ram Fateh, Resident of near Ram Samaj Temple, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 14. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma aged about 38 years Son of Shri Daya Shankar Sharma, Resident of H-267-A, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 15. Udal Singh, aged about 51 years, Son of Sipahi Lal Resident of Village Mora, Post Kajipura, Moradabad. 16. Padmanand aged about 47 yeas Son of Shri Tika Singh Resident of Private Quarters, Line Par, Chau Ki Basti, Moradabad. 17. Neeraj Sharma aged about 42 years, Son of Shri Tekchand, Resident of H-188-A, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 18. Mohd. Asif Ali aged about 37 years, Son of Shri Syed Mahmood Ali Resident of Mughalpura, Moghalwali Masjid Gali No.2, Moradabad. 19. A.N. Sharma aged about 24 years, son of Shri Amar Nath Sharma Resident of Qr. No.118-H, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 20. Rakesh Kumar aged about 48 years, Son of Shri R.N. Saxena Resident Chiriya Tola, Line Par Moradabad. 21. N.P. Saxena, aged about 48 years Son of Shri S.S. Saxena Resident of 2/91 Avas Vikas Colony, Moradabad. 22. Munish Kumar Sharma, aged about 48 years Son of Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma, Resident of Hanuman Nagar Line Par, Moradabad. 23. Umesh Saran Mehrotra aged about 49 years Son of Shri S. Mehrotra, Resident of Mandi Bans Moradabad. 24. Sunil Kumar aged about 42 years, Son of Shri Ram Swaroop Resident of Line Par, Prakash Nagar, Moradabad. 25. Mahesh Kumar aged about 41 years Son of Shri Barbans Singh, Resident of H.S.D. Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 26. Ashok Kumar, aged about 40 years son of Shankar Lal, Resident of L-85-D, Loco Shed Line Par, Moradabad. 27. Arun Fransis, aged about 49 years Son of Shri S. Fransis, Resident of Railway Harthala Colony, Azad Nagar, Moradabad. 28. Ravindra Kumar aged about 35 years Son of Shri Mahendra Pal Sharma Resident of L-65-D, Loco Shed, Moradabad. 29. Devendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 49 years Son of Shri Krishna Dutt Sharma Resident of Qr.No.H-187-A, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 30. Raghunath Singh aged about 37 years Son of Shri Ram Nath Singh, Resident of H-228-B, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 31. Mahi Pal Singh aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Ram Prasad Resident of Line Par, Chiriya Tola, Moradabad. 32. Dharam Pal Singh aged about 47 years Son of Shri Ram Prasad, Resident of Line Par, Chiraya Tola, Moradabad. 33. Som Pal Singh aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Hori Lal, Resident of T-76-A(OH), Railway Colony, Moradabad. 34. Hari Raj Singh aged about 34 years, Son of Shri Tara Singh Resident of Vikas Nagar Colony Line Par Moradabad. 35. Jai Kumar Trivedi aged about 49 years Son of Shri Heera Lal Trivedi, Resident of Qr. No.58 Railway Colony, Rauza, Shahjahanpur 36. Saroj Kumar Mishra, aged about 50 years, Son of Shri Ram Niwas Mishra, Resident of Rauza, Shahjahanpur. 37. Rajendra Kumar aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Ujagar Lal, Resident of Qr. No.24-B, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 38. Kallu Ram aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Baiju Resident of L-71-A, Railway Colony, Shahjahanpur. 39. Dilip Kumar, aged about 46 years, Son of Shri ram Charan Resident of Qr. No.20/Q, Railway Colony, Shahjahanpur. 40. Ram Babu-II aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Banwari Lal, Resident of Qr. No.75-A, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 41. Satya Prakash Pandey aged about 45 years Son of Shri Shyam Sundar Pandey Resident of Qr. No.BW-90-A, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 42. Farhat Hussain, aged about 38 years Son of Shri Wajahat Hussain Resident of Qr. No.L-11-CD, Railway Colony, Rauza, Shahjahanpur. 43. Shree Ram aged aabout 43 years, Son of Late Dirgaj Prasad, Resident of Qr. No.17-CD, Railway Colony, Rauza, Shahjahanpur. 44. Sheel Kumar aged about 57 years Son of Shri Balwan Singh Resident of Qr. No.L-178-B, Railway Colony, Rauza, Shahjahanpur. 45. Sushil Kumar Mishra, aged about 42 years Son of Shri Swami Dayal Mishra Resident of Qr. No.142-A, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 46. Ved Ram aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Sundar Lal Resident of Qr. No. BW-124-A, Railway Colony Rauza Shahjahanpur. 47. Ram Autar aged about 49 years Son of Late Kedar Nath Resident of 19-CD Railway Colony Rauza, Shahjahanpur. 48. Hari Om Verma aged about 43 years Son of Shri Krishna Verma Resident of L-168-A, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 49. Ram Kumar-I aged about 49 years, Son of Shri Sirdar Resident of Qr. No.L-72-B, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 50. Malikhan aged about 53 years, Son of Late Manohar Lal, Resident of L-11-B, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 51. Sushil Fransis aged about 39 years Son of Shri Laurenz Fransis Resident ofL-67-B, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 52. Manoj Kumar Pushkarma aged about 39 years Son of Late Girdhari Lal Resident of 135 Civil Lines, Bareilly. 53. Shree Krishna aged about 52 years Son of Late Bhagwan Deen Resident of Imlipur Kachhewara, Balamau. 54. Ram Pal aged about 47 years Son of Shri Nanhu Lal Resident of Nai Basti Fatehganj East Bareilly. 55. Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava aged about 41 years Son of Shri Jagdish Saran Resident of 183-A, Railway Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 56. Rajesh Kumar-II aged about 36 years Son of Shri Fateh Bahadur Resident of 17, Sona Vihar Alam Nagar Lucknow. 57. Bhup Singh aged about 47 years Son of Shri Lakhmi Singh Resident of E-259-B, Station Colony, Rauza Shahjahanpur. 58. Vijay Pal Singh, aged about 46 years Son of Shri Dashrath Singh Resident of Hanuman Nagar Line Par Moradabad. 59. Mahesh Chand-III, aged about 39 years Son of Shri Chandra Pal Singh Resident of Shivaji Nagar Line Par Gali No.2, Moradabad. 60. Shreekant, aged about 51 years Son of Shri Bindeshwari Resident of Hanuman Nagar Line Par Moradabad. 61. Mohd. Iqbal aged about 36 years Son of Shri Rafiq Ahmad Resident of Nawabpur Bagh, Rai Gali Navi Karim Moradabad. 62. Suraj Pal aged about 48 years Son of Shri Babu Ram, Resident of Village Rafatpur, Post Katghar, Moradabad. 63. Kailash Chand aged about 45 years Son of Shri Raj Singh Resident of H-38-B, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 64. Ramesh Kumar-III aged about 52 years Son of Shri Raghuvir Singh Resident of H-257-D, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 65. Mahesh Chand-I, aged about 45 years, Son of Luxmi Chand Resident of T-80-P, South Colony, Line Par Moradabad. 66. Nazir Hussain aged about 49 years Son of Shri Kale Khan Resident of L-4-A, near D.R.M. Office Moradabad. 67. Vishnu Saran aged about 39 years Son of Late G. Harsaran Resident of Katghar Veer Shah Hajari Near Shyam Lal School Moradabad. 68. Sarjeet Singh-II, aged about 43 years Son of late G. Ram Ratan, Resident of Adarsh Colony New P.A.C. Moradabad. 69. Jitendra Kumar, aged about 31 years, Son of Late G. Jiya Lal, Resident of 107-A, Loco Shed Railway Colony, Moradabad. 70. Sant Singh aged about 45 years Son of Late Ram Kishan Resident of H-318-A, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 71. Chandresh Kumar aged bout 42 years Son of Late Shambhu Dayal Srivastava Resident of Shankar Nagar Line Par Moradabad. 72. Vinod Kumar Sharma aged about 42 years Son of Shri C.N. Sharma Resident of Shankar Nagar Line Par, Moradabad. 73. Umesh Babu Sharma aged about 39 years Son of Shri Indra Prakash Sharma Resident of H-36-D, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 74. Shankar Singh aged about 50 years Son of Shri Fakir Chand Resident of Pushkar Nagar Mali Khera Road, Amroha, J.P. Nagar. 75. Ram Chandra-III aged about 47 years Son of Shri Bharat Resident of Village Umrapur, Post Sursa, District Hardoi. 76. Ghanshyam Singh-II, aged about 39 years Son of Late Suraj Pal Singh, Resident of Khushhalpur, Bank Colony, Usha Nagar, Moradabad. 77. Mayank Mishra, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri L.N. Mishra, Resident of Lal Mohammad Mandi Chowk, Moradabad. 78. Giriwar Singh, aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Puran Singh Resident of Village Farhedi, Post Kharav Moradabd. 79. Anek Pal Singh aged bout 48 years, Son of Shri Sundar Singh Resident of P-1-A, Railway Colony, Chandausi, Moradabad. 80. Ajay Kumar aged about 37 years, Son of Late Yad Ram Resident of Vikas Nagar, Line Par behind K.G. College Moradabad. 81. Udai Singh aged about 41 years Son of Late Vishan Singh Resident of H-59-B,Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 82. Akhtar Hussain, aged about 47 years Son of Shri Bundu Khan, Resident of Kanjari Sarai, Coal Depot, Moradabad. 83. Rajesh Kumar-I aged about 49 years Son of Shri Karan Singh Resident of HSF-2-F, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 84. Laltu Singh aged about 47 years Son of Shri Chhotey Lal, Residentof Meerpur, Milan Vihar near Akanksha School, Moradabad. 85. Yogendra Lal aged about 38 years Son of Shri Heera Lal, Residnet of Jwala Nagar, Gali No.2, Rampur. Applicants By Advocate: Shri T.S. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 4. Shri Ram Karan Singh Tyagi, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division Moradabad. Respondents By Advocates: Shri P. Mathur Shri K.P. Singh Along with Original Application No.538 of 2007 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) 1. Ved Prakash-II, aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Mewa Ram, Resident of 189-A, Hospital Colony Rouza, Shahjahanur. 2. Ram Bharosi Meena, aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Kemelan Ram, Resident of T-13-D, Railway Colony, Balamau. 3. Mohd. Kalim, Resident of Church Colony, Rouza, Shahjahanpur. 4. Ashok Kumar, aged about 46 years, Son of Shri Ram Kishan Resident of Qr. No.-48, Loco Shed, Moradabad. 5. Narendra Kumar Saini, aged about 43 years, Son of Shri B.S. Saini, Resident of Qr. No.SE-8/M, South Colony, Near K.G.K. College, Line Par, Moradabad. 6. R.K. Kanaujia, aged about 54 years, Son of Shri M. Kanaujia, Resident of 16-C, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 7. Dal Singh, aged about 51 years Son of Ram Swaroop, Resident of Qr. No.H-4-C, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 8. Chandar Singh, aged about 48 years, Son of Chamaru Singh, Resident of Qr. No.H-245-A, Railway Harthala Colony, Moradabad. 9. Ram Pal Parnami, aged about 49 years Son of Ghasi Ram, Resident of Subhash Nagar, Idhah Road, Shahjahanpur. 10. Ram Saran Yadav aged about 54 years, Son of Karan Yadav Resident of Qr. No.181-A, Railway Colony, Rouza. 11. Rakesh Kumar-II, aged about 43 years, Son of Lakhan, Resident of Qr. No.L-46, Loco Shed, Balamau. 12. Radhey Shyam-I, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Ram Autar, Resident of H. No.15 Gali No.B, Shakti Nagar, Chiriya Tola Moradabad. 13. Abdul Sattar, aged about 44 years Son of Late Khairati, Resident of Village Bhartwali, Post Kajipura, District Moradabad. Applicants By Advocate: Shri T.S. Pandey Versus 1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. 4. Shri Ram Karan Singh Tyagi, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Moradabad Division Moradabad. Respondents By Advocates: Shri P. Mathur Shri K.P. Singh O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon. Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member-J)
1. As the subject matter involved in all the above O.As is the same, all these cases have been heard and this common order is passed. For the purpose of references, OA No. 619 of 2007 has been taken as the pilot case.
2. The applicants are working in the Railways in various capacities, such as Diesel Assistants, Shunters, Fireman Grade I and Grade II. These posts are the feeder categories for the higher post of Goods Driver. The post of Goods Driver is filled up by way of selection through written examination of the eligible persons in the feeder grade and on the basis of their seniority. There are a few cases pending before the Principal Bench over seniority and during the pendency of the said cases, the Respondents have issued a provisional seniority list dated 10-02-2004 with a rider that the same is subject to the outcome of the pending cases before the C.A.T. and it was on the basis of the said provisional seniority list that the respondents have published notification dated 04-08-2006 calling for various persons for sitting in the written examination. In respect of seniority issue, the Headquarters, Northern Railway had called for certain details, vide letter dated 08-03-2007. The respondents had, however, gone ahead with the proposed examination and as per the order dated 04-08-2006 the applicants had participated. It is the case of the applicants that the respondents had ensured certain selective persons to sit in a separate room and others in other rooms and the selective persons had been allowed to copy and in fact the respondent No. 4 himself was dictating the answers to the questions. Thus, such selective persons could be successful in the examination, and the applicants who were seated in separate rooms failed. The paradox is that some of those who have been selected do not even possess the requisite minimum number of years of service as required under the Rules. Further, the provisions of Railway Board circular dated 28-01-1988 as well as provisions of Para 219(g), 215, 216 of the IREM as well as the need to obtain prior permission as per P.S. No. 11729 have all been given a complete go bye. Clubbing of vacancies is not permissible, yet the same had been adopted. On the declaration of the results on 05-03-2007, wherein none of the applicants was held to be successful, the applicants submitted to the respondents about the above said anomalies through their representation dated 06-03-2007 vide Annexure A-9 but there was no joy. Being aggrieved by the irregularities in the selection process, the applicants have moved this O.A.
3. Of the four cases, the relief/s sought in all the four are the same, save that in so far as relief in OA No. 538 of 2007, there is an additional relief. Thus, the common relief/s are as under:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 04.08.2006 with the further order and direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the subsequent preparation of panel on the basis of result dated 5.3.2007 and the same be suspended until final adjudication of this Original Application.
4. Additional relief in OA No. 538 of 2007 is as under:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 4.8.2006 with the further order and direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the formal confirmation order of the applicants of working on the post of Driver Goods and pay the difference of arrears of salary between the pay scale of Rs.4000 6000 to the pay scale of Rs.5000 8000 since the date they are discharging the duties of Driver Goods till the date of actual payment along with running allowance of 30% and 12% interest.
5. The case of the respondents is as under:-
(a) Preliminary objection. Non joinder of the parties is the first preliminary objection. Secondly, the applicants having participated in the selection, cannot, after they had failed in the said selection, challenge the selection.
(b) On merit. There has been no irregularity or illegality in the publishing of the impugned order and selection based on the examination conducted by the respondents. According to the respondents, the post of Loco Pilot (Goods Driver in the past) is a selection post based on positive act of selection and the procedure is prescribed in PS No. 11279, vide CA 1. The said post being of safety category, no relaxation can be made. The prescription of minimum marks etc is as per Instruction No. 8091 vide Annexure CA-2. In the year 1996, 1997 and 2001 selections were held and in all the three selection, panels prepared and operated upon. And, due to occurrence of fresh vacancies subsequently, the present selection was initiated on 01-01-2005 and was notified on 21-11-2005. In order to prepare the eligibility list, seniority list was to be prepared and there being shortfall of candidates eligible for selection, reference had been made in accordance with the P.S. No. 11279 vide letter dated 28-02-2005 for grant of approval to consider other categories in the lower grade to prepare requisite number of eligible candidates. Annexure CA-3 refers. The General Manager had accordingly, vide Annexure A-4 order dated 18-03-2005 afforded necessary approval. The selection was based on the results of the written examination, without viva voce, as, in accordance with the provisions of Railway Board circular dated 03-09-2003, there is no need to have the viva voce in respect of selection post. (Annexure CA-6 read with CA -7 refers.) As per the results, 180 persons were declared successful and a panel accordingly was prepared. However, in accordance with the interim orders certain posts have been kept vacant, which pose undue hardship in running the trains for shortage of goods pilots. According to the respondents, there is no role of seniority as far as selection is concerned, save for the purpose of working out the zone of consideration. The allegations made by the applicants against respondent No. 4 are totally baseless and not supported with any documents and they have been intended to malign the integrity of the invigilating officer, particularly when no irregularity had taken place in the process of selection. The contention that the applicants while writing the examination found that those in the other room had been allowed to copy and also that the invigilator himself was dictating the answers is to be rejected as the same is inconceivable. There has been no manipulation as alleged in the conducting of the selection. Contention that the selection is against the order in PS 11279 is also invalid as the candidates who fulfilled the eligibility condition as contained in the said P.S. were alone called for and the seniority is allowed to those who qualified the written test and not those who failed. The seniority list of 10-02-2004 and 23-08-2004 had been substituted by another one dated 07-05-2007 in the wake of the judgment of the Principal Bench.
6. Interim relief was granted that selection is subject to outcome of the O.A. which was later on modified to the extent of keeping certain posts unfilled. This is as per orders in two of the above said O.As.
7. Shri T.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently and vociferously argued that the respondents action is diagonally opposite to the provisions of Rule 215, 216 and 219 of the IREM as well as order dated 08-03-2007 of the Northern Railway Headquarters. He had taken us through the relevant portions and the same are as under:-
Rule 215
215. Selection Post a. Selection post shall be filled by a positive act of selection made by Selection Boards, from amongst the staff eligible for selection. The positive act of selection shall consist of only written test to assess the professional ability the candidates, for which reasonable advance notice should be sent, except in the case of selection for promotion to posts in the categories of Teachers, Law Assistants, Physiotherapists and Telephone Operators, where the positive of selection shall consist of both written test and viva-voce test. The staff in immediate lower grade with a minimum of two years service in that grade only will be eligible for promotion, unless a longer length of service in the lower grade has been stipulated as a condition of eligibility for promotion in a particular category. The service for this purpose includes service, if any, rendered on ad hoc basis followed by regular service without break. The condition of two years service should stand fulfilled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration. If by virtue of above rule, a junior is eligible for promotion, his senior also will be eligible for such promotion, even though he might not have put in a total service of years, or more, (if stipulated in particular category in the lower grade).
{Selection post shall be filled by a positive act of selection made by Selection Boards, from amongst the staff eligible for selection. The positive act of selection may consist of a written test and/or viva-voce test; in every case viva-voce being a must. The staff in the immediate lower grade with a minimum of two years service in that grade will only be eligible for promotion, unless a longer length of service in the lower grade has been stipulated as a condition of eligibility for promotion in any particular category. The service for this purpose includes service, if any, rendered on adhoc basic followed by regular service without break. The condition of two years service should stand fulfilled at the time of actual promotion and not necessarily at the stage of consideration. If by virtue of the above rule, a junior is eligible for promotion, his senior also will be eligible for such promotion, even though he might not have put in a total service of two years, or more, (if stipulated in particular category in the lower grade.} Corrected vide Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/39, dated 07.08.1998 (RBE 175/98) b. The selection for promotion to a selection post shall be made on the basis primarily of merits.
c. Promotion to selection post shall be made by the competent authority in accordance with the recommendations of a Selection Board in the manner detailed in paragraph @@{para 219} 216 below. If, in any case, such authority is unable to accept the recommendation, a reference shall be made to the General Manager, who may if necessary constitute a fresh Selection Board at a higher level and whose decision in the matter shall be final.
d. The Railway Board may adopt a procedure other than the one laid down in para 219 para 216 below while deciding individual cases of hardship.
e. {Eligible staff upto three times the number of staff to be empanelled will be called for the selection. The staff employed in the immediate lower grade on fortuitous basis will not be eligible for consideration.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No. E(NG)I-76/PM1/168 dated 03.09.1976 and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)] Notes:
1. Persons who have expressed their unwillingness should not be reckoned for determining the zone of consideration and additional persons in lieu thereof may be called for the selection.
2. If a candidate without giving unwillingness does not appear in the selection, he has to be taken in the reckoning and therefore has to be called for supplementary selection. If he gives his unwillingness on a subsequent date after the selection has commenced, additional persons will not be called to compensate for him.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No. E(NG)I-81/PM1/282 dated 16.04.1982 and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)] (ee) Deleted vide ACS No. 150 {It is desirable to hold written test as part of a selection in respect of all initial selection grade posts in the different channels of promotion, but in every case a viva-voce test shall be held. If a written test is proposed to be held, advance intimation shall be given to all eligible candidates."
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No. E(NG)I-76/PM1/168 dated 03.09.1976 and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)]} @@ As per Advance Correction Slip No. 82 issued under Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99) f.
i. **the assessment of vacancies for selection posts within a cadre will include the existing vacancies and those anticipated during the course of next 15 month. All the vacancies, if any, existing and reported upon by a Construction Organisation including Railway Electrification and other Projects should also be taken into account. For selection for ex-cadre posts, actual vacancies plus those anticipated in the next two years should be taken into account."
** Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 30 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-96/PM1/19 Dated 21.10.1997 (RBE 141/97) ii. {The concept of anticipated vacancies referred to in (i) above should be deemed to connote the vacancies due to normal wastage (i.e. retirement or superannuation), likely acceptance of notice for voluntary retirement/resignation; the vacancies in the higher grade in the channel, the filling up of which will result in the need to make consequent appointment from the proposed panel, staff approved to go on deputation to other units, staff already empanelled for ex-cadre posting, creation of posts already sanctioned by the competent authority, and due to staff likely to go on transfer to other Railways/Divisions during the period under consideration [Authority : Railway Board's letters No. E(NG)I-80/PM1/21 Dated 25.01.1983 and E(NG)I-97/PM1/31 Dated 17.02.1998 (RBE 38/98)]} substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 36 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/31 Dated 17.02.1998 (RBE 38/98).
**216. In regard to selection posts, it is essential that all the selections are conducted annually in a regular manner. However, where holding of the next selection becomes necessary before a gap of one year on account of the panel getting exhausted, the earlier selection not throwing up adequate number for empanelment/promotion, etc., the same may be held after a minimum time gap of six months from the date of approval of the panel finalised as a result of the first selection. This condition of six months restriction between selections will not, however, apply to general selections which are conducted by calling options from serving employees fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions [Authority: Board's letters No. E(NG)I-76/PM1/168 dated 3.09.1976, E(NG)I-79/PMI/105 dated 26.04.1979 and E(NG)I-94/PM1/10 dated 04.07.1997 (RBE 94/97) {and 09.12.1998 (RBE 279/98)}] ** Para 216 Inserted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 65 issued under Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG)I-94/PM1/10, dated 09.12.1998 (RBE 279/98).
Iinserted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 65 issued under Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG)I-94/PM1/10 dated 19.02.1999 (RBE 20/99).
General Manager can exempt time gap of 6 Months in case of Safety Category posts vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-94/PM1/10 dated 11.2.03 (RBE 31/2003).
219. Procedure to be adopted by Selection Board.
(a) When a selection post is to be filled, the authority empowered to constitute a Selection Board shall direct to the Board to assemble and make recommendation. It shall also nominate the Officer who shall act as the Chairman of the Board. The responsibility for selection will be of all members.
(b) {An officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board must be authorised to set the question paper for written test, ~~~~~~{if such a test is} held as part of the selection for determining the professional ability.
Where possible another officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board should be nominated to evaluate the answer books, ensuring, however, that the answer books are invariably evaluated by a Member - Officer of the Department for which selection is held. The test should be conducted on a confidential system with Roll numbers.
[Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-95/PM1/14 Dated 03.03.1998 (RBE 52/98)]} a.
i. ~~~~~~{In the written test held as part of the selection for promotion to the highest grade selection post in a category, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test. In the written test held as part of the selection for promotion to other lower grade selection posts, objective type questions should be set to the extent of about 25% (in the range of 20% to 30%) of the total marks for the written test.
ii. The provisions at (i) above will be applicable to selections in all departments except Accounts Department} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 {In the written test, if any, held as part of the selection for promotion to the highest grade selection post in a category, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test. In the written test if any, held as part of the selection for promotion to other lower grade selection posts, objective type questions should be set to the extent of about 25% (in the range of 20% to 30%) of the total marks for the written test.
In order to offset the impact of random answering to objective type questions, one-fourth (1/4) mark should be deducted for each wrong answer.
The provisions at (i) and (ii) above will be applicable to selections in all departments except Accounts Department.
b. [Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No. E(NG)I-83/PM1/65(PNMNFIR) dated 17.4.84, E(NG)I-2000/PM1/41 dated 24.11.2000 (RBE 202/2000) and 8-3-2002(RBE 32/2002)].} c. Moderation of result, by way of awarding grace marks to candidates shall not be resorted to without the authority of the Selection Board or the authority competent to accept the recommendation of Selection Board. No grace marks shall be allowed in individual cases.
[E(NG)I/67 PM 1-21, dated 25.2.1971 and E(NG)I/84-PM 1/6, dated 30.3.1985] d. Before the Selection Board assembled to make the selection, the papers connected with the proposed selection, the names of the candidates to be considered, the confidential reports, if any on such candidates and other relevant data concerning them shall be circulated for the information of the members of the Board as also the qualification prescribed for the particular post under consideration.
e. {The Selection Board will examine the service record the confidential reports (if kept) of the staff eligible. A single evaluation sheet should be prepared to assess the candidates under the different headings of Personality, Address, Leadership etc., to be signed by all members of the Selection Board. Correction in the evaluation sheet, if any, should be attested by all the members of the Selection Board. The members nominated on a Selection Board should be advised clearly that there should not be any cuttings and overwriting in the proceedings of the Selection Board and serious objection of any cuttings and over-writing will be taken.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-79/PM1/320 dated 23.12.1979, E(NG)I-91/PM1/34 dated 01.05.1992 (RBE 71/92) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)]} f. Selection should be made primarily on the basis of overall merit, but for the guidance of Selection Board the factors to be taken into account and their relative weight are laid down below: -
[E(NG)I-69/PM 1-126 dt. 18.6.69] Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks
(i) Professional ability 50 30
(ii) Personality, Address, Leadership and Academic qualification 20
-
(iii) A record of service 15
-
(iv) Seniority 15
-
{Note (i) Assessment under item personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qualifications should be made on the basis of the entries in the relevant columns in the Confidential Reports, wherever maintained.} Note (ii) The record of service should also take into consideration the performance of the employee in essential Training Schools/Institutes apart from the examining CRs and other relevant records.
[E(NG)I-72/PM 1/192 dt. 27.6.73] Note (iii) ~~~~~~{Candidates must obtain a minimum of 60% marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregate for being placed on the panel. In a few cases where both written and oral tests are held for adjudging the professional ability, the written test should not be of less than 35 marks and the candidates must secure 60% marks in written test for the purpose of being called in viva-voce test. Provided that 60% of the total of the marks prescribed for written examination and for seniority will also be the basis for calling candidates for viva-voce test instead of 60% of the marks for the written examination only; marks for seniority being awarded on notional basis. However, it should be specifically made clear to them that they are being called for interview based on the marks for seniority awarded on notional basis and that empanelment will be subject to their securing 60% marks in the professional ability (written test and viva voce test) and 60% in the aggregate.} Candidates must obtain a minimum of 30 marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregates for being placed on the panel. Where both written and oral tests are held for adjudging the professional ability, the written test should not be of less than 35 marks and the candidates must secure 60% marks in written test for the purpose of being called in viva-voce test. %%{****}. Provided that 60% of the total marks prescribed for written examination and for seniority will also be the basis for calling candidates for viva-voce test instead of 60% of the marks for the written examination ~~{Only; marks for seniority being awarded on notional basis. However, it should be spherically {specially} made clear to them that they are being called for interview based on the marks for seniority awarded on notional basis and that empanelment will be subject to their securing 60% marks in the professional ability (written test and viva voce test) and 60% in the aggregate.} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 [Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 04.03.1998 (RBE 53/98) and No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 17.06.1998 (RBE 133/98)] [Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-92/PM4/1 dated 31.03.1992 (RBE 51/92) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)] {Note (iv) The proviso in the Note (iii) above will not be applicable in respect of the ex-cadre posts where the employee retains his lien in the parent cadre and seeks advancement therein.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-83/PM1/65 (PNM-NFIR) dated 28.01.1988 (RBE 21/1988) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/1999)]} {Note (v) in the case of selection for promotion as Motorman, substitute the following for the existing heading 'Personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qualifications' in the table below para 219 (g):-
Max. Marks Qualifying Marks Aptitude Test 20 Nil Minimum cut-off as may be decided by RDSO [Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003)] Amended vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM1/31 dated 29.03.2005 (RBE 57/2005).
g. The importance of an adequate standard of professional ability and capacity to do the job must be kept in mind and a candidates who does not secure 60% marks in professional ability shall not be placed on the panel even if on the total marks secured, he qualifies for a place. Good work and a sense of public duty among the consciousness staff should be recognised by awarding mere marks both for record of service and professional ability h. The names of selected candidates should be arranged in order of seniority but those securing a total of ++{80% or more marks} will be classed as outstanding and placed in the panel appropriately in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of eligibility.
[E(NG)I/76 PM I-142, dated 25.7.1979 and 30.10.1979] i. For general posts i.e., those outside the normal channel of promotion for which candidates are called from different categories whether in the same department or from different department, the selection procedure should be as under -
i. ### ACS 152 {All eligible staff irrespective of the department in which they may be working who satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility and volunteer for the post should be subjected to a selection which should consist of a written test and in a few cases viva-voce test also as indicated in sub-para (a) of para 215. The various factors of selection and their relative weight will be as indicated below :-} ii. All eligible staff irrespective of the department in which they may be working who satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility and volunteer for the post should be subjected to a selection which should consist of both written and viva-voce tests. %%{The various factors of selection and their relative weight will be as indicated below:
Maximum marks Qualifying marks (1) ~~~~~~Professional ability 50 30 Substituted vide ACS No. 150 (1) Professional ability consisting of
(a) written test; and 35 21 30/50
(b) Viva-voce test.15 (3)
Personality, address, leadership, academic/technical qualifications.
30 (4)Record of service.
20Note: (i) The assessment under heading (2) and (3) above will be governed by the provisions contained in Notes (i) and (ii) below para 219 (g).}
(ii) {In the case of selection for promotion to the post of. Diesel/Elect. Assts. and ASMs, the heading (2) above shall be bifurcated as under:-
Max. Marks Qualifying Marks
(i) Academic/technical qualifications 10 Nil
(ii) Aptitude Test 20 Nil Minimum cut-off as may be decided by RDSO.
[Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003)] Corrigendum vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM 1/31 dated 9.9.2003 (RBE 158/2003) ACS No. 153 Amended vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM1/31 dated 29.03.2005 (RBE 57/2005).
iii. {in a few cases where both written test and viva-voce test are held to assess the professional ability of the candidates, all those who secure not less than 60% marks in the written test should be called for viva-voce test.} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 The Selection Board should call for viva-voce test all candidates who secure not less than 60% marks in the written test%%{; and Iv. The final panel should be drawn up in order of seniority from amongst those who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the professional ability and 60% marks in the aggregate, provided that those securing a total of ++{80% or more marks} will be classed as outstanding and placed at the top of the panel in order of seniority [Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-90/PM1/11 dated 16.11.1998 (RBE 263/98)]} j. The list will be put up to the competent authority for approval. Where the competent authority does not accept the recommendations of a Selection Board, the case could be referred to the General Manager, who may constitute a fresh Selection Board at a higher level, or issue such other orders, as he considers appropriate.
k. After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority, it is found subsequently, that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel.
[E(NG)I-67 PM 1-47 dt. 5.2.1969] l. SELECTION OF PERSONS ON DEPUTATION ABROAD. The panel should be finalised without waiting for the employees who are on deputation abroad. On return of the employee from abroad, if it is found that any one junior to him has been promoted on the basis of a selection in which he was not called because of his being abroad, he may be considered in the next selection and if selected, his seniority may be adjusted vis-`-vis his juniors. In case such an employee is declared outstanding in the next selection, he should be interpolated in the previous panel in accordance with the seniority and gradation in the subsequent selection.
[E(NG)I/77/PM 1-269 dt. 3.5.1980] Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 40 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-95/PM1/14 dated 3.3.1998 (RBE 52/98)].
Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 46 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 17.06.1998 (RBE 133/98).
As per Advance Correction Slip No. 66 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-90/PM1/11 dated 16.11.1998 (RBE 263/98).
Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 83 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99).
Inserted Advance Correction Slip No. 84 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99).
S substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 111 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2000/PM1/30 Dated 12.10.2000 (RBE 174/2000).
&& Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 130 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2000/PM1/41 dated 8-3-2002 (RBE 32/2002).
Inserted vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003) Substituted/inserted/deleted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 130 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2000/PM1/41 dated 7.8.2003 (RBE 137/2003) Advance Correction Slip No 152 issued vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2000/PM1/41 dated 27.08.2003 (RBE 151/2003).
ACS No 153 ----- Corrigendum vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM 1/31 dated 9.9.2003 (RBE 158/2003) Sub: Assignment of correct seniority.
Please refer to this office letter of even number dated 26.12.2006 on the subject under which it was requested to furnish the under noted information of your division but the reply is still awaited despite issue of reminder dated 7.2.07.
1. Howe many DSL Asstt. have been appointed since 1.1.87 to 31.12.1990 batch wise details be given.
2. Initial training for how much duration was imparted to them and quote the authority for providing this training indicating tenure.
3. Howe they have been assigned seniority on completion of training.
4. What was the duration indicated in their after and the actual training parted to them be indicated.
5. Was training of any batch curtailed? If yes, them how the seniority of such staff has been regulated It is, therefore, requested to send the above information to this office immediately as this issue is pending in GM/PNM with NRMU.
8. Yet another order relied upon by the counsel for the applicant is P.S. No. 11279 dated 29-11-1996 which read as under:-
Copy of Railway Boards letter No.E(NG)I_94/PM7/16/Pt.I, dated 01.05.96 Sub: Promotion of non-gazetted staff in Loco Running Cadre Posts of Goods Drivers.
Attention to invited to Boards letter No.E(NG)I94/PM7/16 dated 3.8.95 laying down that the posts of Goods Drivers in Scale Rs.1350 2200 may be filled only by promotion of Shunter in Scale Rs.1200 2040 (RPS)/Rs.1350 2200 with atleast three months service in the grade that for such promotion the residency period of two years in the lower grade for promotion to the next higher grade may be relaxed, with the personal approval of G.M. upto three months, if so warranted in administrative interest. It subsequently clarified vide Railway Boards letter No.E(NG)I/94/PM7/16, dated 13.12.1995 that the relaxation of the residency period as above would mean that shunters with 3 months service or more as such will be eligible for being considered of post of Goods Driver.
2. Some of the Railways have brought to the notice of the Board that they are being difficulties in filling up the vacancies of Goods Drivers inspite of relaxation granted under Boards letter dated 3.8.95 due to very small cadre of Shunters or due to refusal of Shunters for being considered for promotion as Goods Driver.
2.1 The Board have reviewed the matter and have decided as an interim measure that whenever the Railways are unable to fill up the vacancies of Goods Drivers in term of Boards letters dated 3.8.95 and 13.12.95, the Railways may with the personal approval of their General Manager also consider First Firemen/Diesel/Elect.Asstts. (including Shunters with lesses than 3 months Service) for filling up the vacancies of Goods Drivers provided they have put in:
(i) Six years Service (combined as Second fireman and First Fireman Diesel Assistant/Electric Assistant)
(ii) Two years service as First Fireman/Diesel Assistant/Electric Assistant and
(iii) 60,000 Kms. Experience of foot plate as First Fireman/Diesel Assistant/Electric Assistant.
3. The above dispensation will have prospective effect and will remain valid till further orders in this regard.
9. The challenge by the counsel for the applicant is thus on the following main grounds:-
(a) Non following of the procedure in conducting the selection.
(b) Clubbing of the vacancies.
(c) Having permitted the ineligibles to compete in the examination.
10. Counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision by the Apex court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, (1997) 9 SCC 527, wherein exception to the general rule that candidates having taken a chance to participate in a selection, cannot at a later stage, on their not being successful in the selection, challenge the selection, has been considered and circumstances when such a challenge is maintainable has been indicated. The Apex Court has held in that case as under:-
16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.
11. According to the counsel for the applicants in the instant case, the clubbing of vacancies, the distribution of vacancies beyond the normal ratio for the reserved candidates and calling the individuals who are not eligible for selection are all such serious illegalities in conducting the selection that the same makes the entire selection thoroughly illegal. The Counsel also contended that this decision has not so far been upset by any other subsequent judgments of the Apex Court. Hence, the decision in the case of Raj Kumar applies.
12. The above decision has been referred to in a subsequent decision in the case of Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh,(2008) 4 SCC 619, wherein the apex Court has held as under:-
In the reported decision the Court found a clear-cut breach of the 1955 Rules. It also found that the names, though were required to be called from the employment exchange, were not so called. The Court also found fault with the procedure involved. We are afraid such is not the case in the present situation. No deviation from the rules or no inherent defect in the selection process which would render the whole selection illegal have either been alleged or proved.
13. Thus, all that we have to ascertain is as to whether there has been deviation from the rules or inherent defect in the selection process which would render the whole selection illegal, as alleged by the applicant. The following issues are thus considered from this angle:
(a) As regards number of vacancies earmarked for reserved candidates:
(b) As regards clubbing of vacancies:
(c) Due to erroneous seniority, ineligible candidates having been permitted to participate in the exam:
(d) As regards other malpractice allegedly practised in the examination hall:
14. The above issues are replied as under:_
(a) As regards break up of vacancies, it is the case of the applicants that when there are 273 vacancies, there should have been only 40 vacancies for S.C. and 20 for S.T. whereas, the vacancies earmarked for SC and ST are respectively 59 and 13. This is against the statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in Virpal Singh Chauhan case.
(b) As regards clubbing of vacancies, the counsel argued that this erroneous method of clubbing results in enlarged zone of consideration whereby certain blue eyed boys who otherwise are ineligible could be made eligible and by adopting unfair means as had happened in the instance case, such ineligible candidates could be selected.
(c) So is the case with respect to adopting erroneous seniority whereby ineligible candidates are allowed to infiltrate and participate in the selection proceedings and their selection is at the cost of certain eligible and suitable candidates.
(d) Lastly, as to the malpractice adopted, the counsel contended that in a planned manner, the respondents had managed the seating arrangements and ensured that those who were to be aided to write the examination were placed in one particular hall and the rest in another and the former had been given full hand to adopt any practice to write the examination, including substantial assistance by the invigilators, who had virtually written and displayed the answers to the questions. It was for this reason that the selected persons are all from one particular exam hall and those in the other room failed.
15. The objection on the part of the respondents as almost of preliminary character is two fold (a) Non joinder of necessary party; and (b) challenge cannot be made after participating in the selection. The following decisions of the apex Court have been cited by the counsel for the respondents in support of the above legal issues:-
(a) Non joinder of parties:
(i) Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P:
(ii) State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi,(2008) 6 SCC 797
(b) One cannot challenge selection after participation :
(i) All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen,(2001) 6 SCC 380
(ii) Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986) Supp 285
(iii) Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar,(2007) 8 SCC 100
(iv) State of Uttaranchal v. Madan Mohan Joshi,(2008) 6 SCC 797
16. Counsel for the respondents met the above two preliminary objections in his rejoinder. In so far as the non joinder of parties is concerned, the decision by the Apex court in A Janardhana vs Union of India (1983) 3 SCC 601 had been referred to. Therein, no relief was claimed against any individual. The only relief which was claimed therein was against the Union of India. The question which was raised therein was a question of interpretation. It was in the aforementioned situation, this Court held that all the employees were not required to be impleaded as a party. In that case, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented. It was stated:
36. In this case, the appellant does not claim seniority over any particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents.
17. In the instant case, no relief against individual selectee has been claimed by applicants. The question here is one of legal issue relating to the constitutional mandate as asserted by the counsel for the applicants. Hence, this legal objection has to be rejected.
18. As regards the contention that no challenge could be entertained after participating in the selection, the counsel for the applicant emphasized that when the question of illegality, which permeates into the very root of the selection, such a selection could be challenged at any stage. Heavy reliance has been placed by the counsel upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Raj Kumar vs Shakti Raj, (1997) 9 SCC 527 which reads as under:-
The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K2 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case.
19. Thus, whether the applicants who could not qualify in the selection could agitate or not rests in the fact whether the alleged lacuna and irregularities eclipse the normal rule that the failed cannot challenge the selection and the ratio in the case of Raj kumar (supra) would apply. If the allegations as itemized in one of the preceding paragraphs i.e. Number of vacancies earmarked for reserved candidates, clubbing of vacancies, etc., are found true concurrently, they would give passport to the applicants to challenge the selection.
20. There are in all 273 vacancies of Goods Pilots which are sought to be filled with due reservations catered for as per the rules. Admittedly the extent of distribution of vacancies to General, reserved for SC and reserved for ST for the said 273 vacancies should have been respectively 213, 40 and 20 whereas, the distribution adopted had been to the extent of 201, 59 and 13 respectively. The constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal vs State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 in para 4 thereof, discussed about the necessity to follow strictly the percentage of reservation. Of course, the orientation therein is whether there could be curtailment in reservation on the ground that sufficient number of reserved candidates have already been available against certain general vacancies. In Para 4 of the judgment, the observation of the Apex Court as extracted in a recent case of Union of India v. Ramesh Ram,(2009) 6 SCC 619, at page 625: is as under:-
When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said backward class then the percentage has to be followed strictly.
21. Variation in the percentage means, tilting the balance without justification and such a tilting ever so slightly is to be avoided. In K. Manickaraj vs Union of India (1997) 4 SCC 242, the Apex Court considered whether a temporary post continuing for as many as nine years could be treated as a regular post for working out the percentage of reservation. The Apex Court answered in affirmative and calculated the extent of percentage for reservation, as this one extra post increased the number of reserved posts from 3 to 4. This means that there shall be strict adherence to the percentage of reservation; as a corollary there shall be strict adherence of calculation on the basis of prescribed percentage of reservation, which should not result in reducing the number of vacancies either for unreserved category or for reserved category. In the instant case, the excess quota for SC is 19 and ST is 3. Thus, as many as 22 general vacancies have been diverted. The question is whether the same be permitted as it would deprive a maximum of 22 general category candidates of their opportunity for selection. Counsel for the respondents attempted to justify the above statistics stating that there could be certain backlog vacancies of reserved category, which had been included. This has to be verified and if there is no such backlog, the contention of the counsel for the applicants cannot be marginalized.
22. As regards clubbing of vacancies, the pleadings nowhere indicate the details of clubbing of vacancies for various years. In the absence of the details, the Tribunal cannot consider the same. In this regard, the observation of the Apex court in the case of Mangej Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 471 is apt to be referred to and the same is as under:-
4. The Tribunal has set aside the selection test on two grounds: (1) It has held that vacancies arising from 1979 to 1982 were clubbed together and this has caused prejudice to some candidates because, in respect of vacancies which arose in 1979, only those who had completed three years service in 1979 should have competed and so on for each year up to 1982. There is, however, no factual data on record to show how many vacancies arose in 1979 and in each of the subsequent years up to 1982; and whether, and if so, how many of the selected candidates had completed three years of service in 1979 or in any subsequent year up to 1982. In the absence of any factual data we fail to see how the Tribunal could have held that the clubbing of vacancies from 1979-1982 has caused any prejudice to Respondents 5 to 8.
23. Regarding adoption of erroneous seniority, the applicants have made a point. Seniority list is important for the purpose of working out the zone of consideration. In the case of M.M. Gupta v. State of J & K, (1982) 3 SCC 412, at the Apex Court has held as under:-
The true test in the matter of promotion is the suitability of the candidate. In considering the suitability, no doubt, the seniority plays a very important role.
24. The above, if taken in view, would readily prompt us to hold that when the respondents had issued the notification for selection the seniority list was a matter of sub judice and the same, The seniority list of 10-02-2004 and 23-08-2004 had been substituted by another one dated 07-05-2007 in the wake of the judgment of the Principal Bench. This would mean that a selection conducted by the respondents on the basis of erroneous seniority cannot be allowed to continue. Where necessary, there should also be a review as in the case of Prabhjot Singh Mand v. Bhagwant Singh,(2009) 9 SCC 435, wherein the Apex Court has stated as under:
UPSC reviewed the select list from 1992 to 2006. It was found by the Committee that six officers were eligible for promotion under the new seniority list and made recommendations to the same effect. Six officers who were promoted on the basis of the incorrect seniority list, and subject to the final outcome of the decision in Arvinder Singh Bains , were required to be reverted as either they had become overaged or too junior. Respondent 1 was one of them.
25. Coming to the last limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants, that there had been huge malpractice with the connivance of the invigilators, no proof has been given nor was there any attempt to inform the authorities immediately after the exam was over. Thus, one cannot but presume that this allegation is an after thought. Nevertheless, in so far as requisite experience / hours of foot plate experience is concerned, the same could easily be verified and ascertained as to whether all those who were permitted to participate in selection did fulfill this requirement because, such a requirement cannot be waived or relaxed as the post involved is a safety post
26. Taking into account the fact that there has been a substantial deviation in the percentage of reservation (subject to verification of inclusion of back log vacancies for reserved category), and the fact that the seniority list adopted had to undergo revision in the wake of the decision by the Tribunal, coupled with the probable clubbing of the vacancies as contended by the applicants, it would serve the best interest of both the parties, if proper verification be conducted at the level of C.P.O. and a decision arrived at to hold a fresh examination.
27. We need not have to examine whether the selection was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, 216, 219(g) and Railway Board circular dated 20-01-1988 etc., at this stage in view of other infirmities already pointed out.
28. In view of the above, the OA is allowed to the following extent.
(a) The impugned notification dared 04-08-2006 and panel prepared on the basis of the result dated 05-03-2007 are kept in abeyance. Promotions if any, made on the basis of the above panel should be held as only provisional.
(b) The General Manager Northern Railway (Respondent No. 1) is hereby directed to undertake the following exercise through the C.P.O. :
(i) to verify whether the persons allowed to participate in the previous selection had all been found eligible as per the revised seniority list issued in pursuance of the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
(ii) Whether the vacancies have been duly and properly calculated and whether there is no variance in working out the vacancies for reserved category on the basis of the prescribed percentage;
(iii) Whether the eligible individuals as per the revised seniority who had participated in the selection had the requisite experience as per the provisions of the Manual.
(c) If concurrently all the above fit in squarely with the selection already conducted, then only the panel prepared on the basis of result dated 05-03-2007 shall be pressed into service and the applicants be informed accordingly. If not, the respondents shall hold a fresh selection, keeping in view the requirements and conditions as prescribed in the Manual and the Railway Board Circular.
(d) The above exercise shall be conducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
(S.N. Shukla) (Dr. K.B.S. Rajan)
Member-A Member-J
Sushil
??
??
??
??
Page 50 of 50