Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
P.K. Bhattacharyya S/O Late Arun Kumar ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 8 August, 2013
Reserved on 11.07.2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH,
ALLAHABAD
Original Application No. 536 of 2012
Allahabad this the, _08th day of August, 2013
Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./HOD
Honble Mr. Shashi Prakash, Member (A)
P.K. Bhattacharyya S/o Late Arun Kumar Bhattacharyya R/o Village C/o Bharat Chourasiya, Ram Mandir, Eastern Bazar, M.G.S., District - Chaundli.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Santosh Kumar Rai
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, M.G.S.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, ECR, M.G.S.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Avnish Tripathi
O R D E R
By Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./H.O.D. By the instant O.A., following relief(s) have been claimed by the applicant: -
(I) Quash the impugned empanelment list for promotion dated 05.04.2012.
(II) Further direct the respondents to not to implement to empanelment list during pendency of the case before this Honble Tribunal.
(III) Issue any other order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the applicants case.
(IV) Award the cost of the application to the applicants.
2. The brief facts of this O.A. are as follows: -
That a notification was issued to fill up 204 vacancies for the post of Loco Pilot Goods (Elect.) in the pay scale of `5000-8000/- vide Office letter No. E/E/TRS/Goods Driver/MGS/08 dated 02.12.2008, inviting 442 candidates as per seniority to appear in written examination in which 194 candidates only were found eligible for empanelment which was approved by the competent authority on 24.08.2009. This panel was exhausted after expiry of two years. 69 candidates of this panel were not promoted nor their empanelment was cancelled. The applicant sent a letter under the R.T.I. Act on 09.02.2012 to Public Information Officer for obtaining certain information, which was received by him on 13.04.2012. In the meantime, a promotional list of Loco Pilot (Goods) in the pay band of `9300-34800/- (RPS) was prepared in the department and the same has been approved by the ADRM (MGS) on 05.04.2012 in which 129 candidates have been empanelled in the list. After getting the information from R.T.I., the applicant filed Written Objection before the D.R.M., East Central Railway, Mughalsarai on 23.03.2012 and also sent a reminder to the D.R.M. on 14.04.2012, which has still not been replied by the said authority. The D.R.M., E.C. Railway, Mughalsarai finalised the promotional list, which was approved by the A.D.R.M./MGS on 05.04.2012. Again the applicant along with some other employees sent letter to the concerned authority on 03.02.2012 stating therein that there are some candidates who are not interested in getting the said promotion and they have already sent their refusal for promotion but even then their names have been included in the empanelment. This fact was also not corrected by the concerned authority. Hence, the applicant filed the present O.A. mainly on the grounds that without giving any suitable reply to the objection/ reminders, preferred by the applicant, the respondents have finalised the promotional list. Had the candidature of 15 candidates who have, refused the promotion, been cancelled from the empanelment, other employees in order of seniority would have got the chance for being considered for the said promotion. The rule of reservation has not been followed in preparing the aforesaid panel. The seniority rule has also not been followed and accordingly prayer has been made to quash the aforesaid panel.
3. The respondents have contested the O.A. of applicant denying the allegations made by the applicant, alleging that from the panel finally approved on 24.08.2009, after completion of training in phased manner, the employees so empanelled from serial No. 1 to 125 (except serial No. 65 U/R and 101 ST) have been promoted in due course to the post of Loco Pilot (Goods). In this promotion, full compliance of reservation rules has been made. The said panel expired on 23.05.2011 after expiry of two years from the date of its approval by the competent authority. The extension of said panel could not be granted in absence of any provision by the higher authority. A fresh panel consisting of 129 candidates including 84 unreserved, 42 S.C., and 03 S.T. candidates was formed on 13.04.2012 through due process vide E.O.O. No. 308/12 dated 13.04.2012. This panel has been prepared as per seniority cum suitability based on APAR/ACR and RBE No. 161/2009 and 158/2011, in which it is not necessary to publish notice for selection. Only senior most 129 candidates were considered for promotion. It is also contended by the respondents that the applicant was neither empanelled in the earlier panel, published on 27.08.2009 nor in the new panel of 129 candidates, published on 13.04.2012. He has got no locus standi to object the preparation of new panel. The applicant is not in the zone of consideration in the new panel of 129 candidates. The objections, raised by him, are baseless. It is true that some employees had sent their refusal or unwillingness for said promotion, and the Chief Crew Controller, Mughalsarai has forwarded the refusal of candidates to the Office of Senior DEE (OP)/MGS vide letter dated 19.03.2012, which was received in the office of respondents on 21.03.2012. By that time, selection proceeding was at the verge of completion hence, the same could not be considered. There is no provision in the railway rules to give any opportunity for filing objection against the select list/empanelment. The respondents have not violated any statutory provisions or principles of natural justice in not replying the baseless objections, preferred by the applicant. The applicant has got no case and the O.A. should be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed by the applicant mainly reiterating the earlier stands taken in the O.A.
5. In addition to the above contentions, the applicant has also placed reliance on some documentary evidence, which is annexure A-1 to annexure A-7, and annexure RA-1 to annexure RA-2. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on annexure CR-1 to annexure CR-6 in support of their contentions.
6. The applicant has also moved a Misc. Application on 14.02.2013 with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.05.2012, 08.11.2012 and 23.11.2012 with a direction to the respondents not to operate the impugned panel list during the pendency of this O.A. Some papers have also been filed along with this M.A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and documents on record.
8. The main submission of the applicant in this case is that the promotional panel prepared in the year 2009 was not correct and the subsequent panel dated 13.04.2012 is also not correct. It has been prepared without deciding the objection filed by the applicant with the respondents. The D.R.M., E.C. Railway, Mughalsarai has illegally finalised he promotional list approved by the ADRM, Mughalsarai on 05.04.2012. Emphasis has also been laid by the applicants counsel on the contention that about 15 empanelled employees were not interested in the said promotion and have sent their refusal/unwillingness for the said promotion but their names have also been included in the panel.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the locus standi of the applicant himself with the submission that the applicant was not within the zone of consideration either in the earlier panel of 2009 or in the subsequent panel of 2012. It is not his case that his name has wrongly been dropped from the empanelment or his name has illegally been left out without consideration for being listed in the said empanelment. Since he is not affected by the said empanelment, he has no legal right to challenge the same before this Tribunal. Even in the relief clause, he has not stated that he should be empanelled in the list of promotional candidates. On what basis he has come to this Tribunal is not clear from the O.A. itself. As regards inclusion of names of the employees, who had refused the promotion, he has submitted that it is true that certain employees have refused their promotion through Chief Crew Controller, Mughalsarai, which was forwarded to the Office of Senior DEE (OP), Mughalsarai vide letter dated 19.03.2012, which was received in the office on 21.03.2012, and by that time selection proceeding was at the verge of completion hence, the letter of Chief Crew Controller could not be considered. The applicant is not affected with the said panel. In preparation of the said panel, reservation rules and seniority cum suitability of the candidates have been taken care of.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after perusal of papers on record, we are of the view that the applicant has not been able to prove, by any documentary evidence, that he was within the zone of consideration in the promotional panel prepared in the year 2009 or in the promotional panel, prepared in the year 2012. How he is affected with the aforesaid empanelment, is not clear from the documents on record. In such circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has got no locus standi to challenge the aforesaid empanelment and he is not entitled to get any relief, claimed by him in the present O.A.
11. Accordingly, we conclude that this O.A. is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. O.A. is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Hon. Mr. Shashi Prakash) {Hon. Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member A Member J
/M.M/
8