Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Union Of India vs M.Selvin Jeyachandra on 7 August, 2014

Author: M.M.Sundresh

Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, M.M.Sundresh

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :    07.08.2014
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
and
		   The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
	     W.P.No.23445 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013

1. Union of India, rep.by the
    Chairman,  Railway Board,
    Room No.457,
    Rail Bhavan,
    New Delhi  11

2. The General Manager,
    Southern Railway,
    Chennai  600 003,
    
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
    Head Quarters Office,
    Personnel Branch,
    Chennai  600 003

4. The Divisional Officer,
    Divisional Office,
    Personnel Branch,
    Salem								 .... Petitioners 
	
Vs.

1. M.Selvin Jeyachandra
2. The Registrar,
    Central Administrative Tribunal,
    Chennai  600 104. 						.... Respondents

	Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the 2nd respondent herein in O.A.No.1024 of 2010 and quash the award dated 12.3.2013. 

		For Petitioner 		:   Mr.M.Dhamodharan 

		For Respondents		:   No Appearance 


ORDER

1.1. The 1st respondent joined the services of the petitioners as a Track Man on 23.7.2004 and he applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot under General Departmental Competitive examination under the 25% quota. The 1st respondent was one of the selected candidates and was placed at Sl.No.17 in the list dated 30.12.2005. After having been selected provisionally as Assistant Loco Pilot, the 1st respondent was alloted to Palghat Division. The candidates, who were selected as Assistant Loco Pilot in Direct Recruitment quota by the Railway Recruitment Board/Trivandrum and Railway Recruitment Board/Chennai were also allotted to Palghat Division. The employees at Sl.Nos.59 to 93 and 95 in the Seniority List dated 10.8.2010 and the 1st respondent along with other selected candidates reported to Palghat Division and they were appointed as Probationary Assistant Loco Pilots.

1.2. Before absorption against working post as Assistant Loco Pilots, technical training to the selected candidates should be imparted either at Zonal Electric Traction Training Centre/Avadi or at Diesel Traction Training Centre/Golden Rock, as the case may be and the knowledge of GRS should be imparted at Zonal Railway Training Institute/Trichy. When selected candidates report to the Divisions, they should be sent for the above mandatory induction Training Course. If it happens that candidates from different RRBs or through different panel of the same RRB are reporting to the Division, they can be sent for training on the same day. In such case, the training institute can include all of them in the same Batch for training. Even candidates sent from other Divisions for training can be included in the same batch by the Training Institute. Training is imparted to candidate in batches and according to the specified duration. After completion of training, the candidates will be subject to written/ practical / oral examination as the case may be; and the Zonal Railway Training Institute/Trichy will advise the result in the GRS course to the Divisions concerned. When there are more than one batch undergoing training and if a common examination is conducted for all the batches on the same day, the result of all the batches can be communicated to the Divisions concerned in a single list.

1.3. The Assistant Loco Pilots allotted to Palghat Division were sent for training. The Zonal Railway Training Institute/Trichy conducted the training in GRS Course for the Batch No.56272 and 56274 from 27.2.2006 to 26.4.2006 and held the examination on 26.4.2006 and the result was advised to Palghat Division and Madurai Division by letter No.ZRTI/673/ProALP dated 29.5.2006. For the Batch No.67005, the training in GRS course was conducted from 10.4.2006 to 7.6.2006 and the examination was held on 7.6.2006 and the result was advised to Palghat Division by letter No.ZRTI/P.673/ProALP dated 20.6.2006 and for Batch No.67041 in which the 1st respondent's name was included, the training in GRS course was conducted from 24.5.2006 to 18.7.2006 the examination was held on 18.7.2006 and the result was advised to Palghat Division and Madurai Division by letter No.ZRTI/673/ProALP dated 29.9.2006.

1.4. The 1st respondent after successful completion of Training was absorbed as regular Assistant Loco Pilot at Erode on 7.10.2006 on pay of Rs.3050 in scale of Rs.3050-4590. The area of Erode come under Salem Division after bifurcation of Palghat Division and formation of Salem Division. Against the seniority position assigned to the 1st respondent in the Provisional Seniority list dated 25.3.2010, he made representation dated 5.4.2010. The RRB/Trivandrum candidates were selected under direct recruitment quota, whereas the applicant was selected by RRB/Chennai under GDCE quota. The panel of RRB/Trivandrum candidates are earlier to the Panel of RRB/Chennai Candidates. In terms of the provisions in para 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, (in short, ''IREM''), the candidates selected for appointment at earlier selection shall be seniors to those selected later irrespective of the date of posting.

1.5. As the representation made by the 1st respondent was considered and rejected, the 1st respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside orders dated 28.6.2010 and 9.8.2010 passed by the 4th respondent with a prayer for consequential direction to the petitioners to fix the seniority on the basis of the marks secured by the 1st respondent in the General Departmental Competitive Examination.

1.6. The Tribunal after taking note of para 303 and 306 of IREM Volume I, which governs the case, was pleased to allow the application on the sole ground that even though the petitioners have stated that the persons placed at Sl.Nos.59 to 93 and 95 belong to earlier selection no records have been produced in proof of the same. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Despite notices having been served on the 1st respondent and the name having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel. Hence, we are proceeding to decide the writ petition on merits.

3. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, para 306 of IREM Volume - I governs the case. Under para 306, candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of posting except in the cases covered under paragraph No.305. Now coming to the present case, it is a specific case of the petitioners that persons placed at Sl.Nos.59 to 93 and 95 belong to the earlier selection. There is absolutely no material to controvert the said statement. When the 1st respondent has moved the application it is for him to establish the allegations made. Furthermore, the 1st respondent has not denied the averments made in the reply statement filed by the petitioners on 30.12.2010. In fact, it is the case of the 1st respondent that he is entitled to get the relief based upon para 303. Therefore, when the Tribunal holds that para 306 of IREM Volume I would govern case it ought to have dismissed the application instead of allowing it on irrelevant ground when the fact that the persons placed at Sl.Nos.59 to 93 and 95 were belonged to earlier selection is not in dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed an error by granting the relief in directing to assign sonority to the 1st respondent in the grade of Assistant Loco Pilot based on the marks obtained by him as per para 303 of IREM Railway Boards letter dated 20.08.1993. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

4. Accordingly, the Order dated 12.3.2013 made in O.A.No.1024 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

							(S.K.A.,J.) (M.M.S.,J.)	 							              07.08.2014
Index:Yes/No
usk 	
To
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras.
					     		    Satish K.Agnihotri,J.
					 		    and 
							    M.M.Sundresh,J.

										    usk					






										





										


	   						     W.P.No.23445 of 2013










		
		07.08.2014