Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Govind Prasad Rajak vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2013
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2009
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 14th day of August, 2013
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Govind Prasad Rajak, S/o Shri Sunderlal Rajak,
Aged about 47 years, R/o 201, Ratan Colony,
Opposite Phoenix Group, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. -Applicant
(By Advocate Smt. Anchala Gupta)
V E R S U S
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway
Through General Manager, Indira Market,
Jabalpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (P), West Central Railway,
Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur.
3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager (P),
West Central Railway, Jabalpur Division,
Jabalpur - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S. Ganguly)
(Date of reserving order 23.07.2013)
O R D E R
By G.P. Singhal, AM.-
The applicant in this Original Application has prayed for the following reliefs:-
7(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal.
(ii) Set aside the orders dated 7.11.2008 Annexure A/1, dated 28.7.2008 Annexure A/2 and the order dated 16.1.2009 Annexure A/10:
(iii) Command the respondents to consider the case of the applicant by treating him as passed candidate in the written examination in question and consequently promote him to the post of Junior Clerk under 33 =% departmental quota with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date other candidates are being promoted.
(iv) Any other order/orders, which this Honble Court deems, fit proper.
(v) Award the cost of the litigation to the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had participated in selection for promotion under 33 1/3 % departmental quota to the post of Junior Clerk in response to the notification dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure A/3). It was mentioned in the notification that:-
The eligible candidates would have to face a written examination consisting of two parts; first part would consist of General Knowledge of Hindi and English language and the second part would consist of General Knowledge of Arithmatic and general information about railways. The employees declared suitable/passed in the written examination were to be considered for promotion as per their seniority in the feeder post.
3. When the results were declared, on not finding his name in the list of successful candidates, the applicant obtained information under Right to Information Act, according to which he had obtained 39.12 marks out of 50 in Part A and 24 marks out of 50 in Part B. Thus, the applicant had obtained more than 63% marks in the written test. It was also revealed that in Part B of the question paper he had written in answer to question No.8 (c) asking for full form of abbreviation O.B.C., as Anya Pichhada Varg. However, this answer has been marked wrong, thereby depriving the applicant by one more mark in Part B of the paper.
4. The applicant, thereafter, submitted representations dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure A/7) and 19.12.2008 (Annexure A/8) before the respondents. In response to these representations, he has received the communication dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure A/10) informing that requisite marks in the written examination for promotion from Group D to Group C are decided as per the Railway Boards letter dated 22.09.2003. However, the copy of this letter has not been supplied by the respondents.
5. The applicant submitted that the procedure for promotion from Group D to Group C in railways is regulated as per the provisions of Para 189 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, 1989 (for brevity IREM). In this regard, the Railway Board circular R.B.E. No.144/2007 (Annexure A/11) provides that 60% marks are required to be secured in each paper and the candidate is not required to secure 60% marks separately in each part of the question paper. The applicant further submitted that, the Office Memorandum dated 13.10.1994 of Department of Personnel and Training (for brevity DOP&T), given at Annexure A/12, provides that in respect to written examinations and interview, in order to fulfill the quota earmarked for Other Backward Class (for brevity OBC), relaxation of standards may be provided to OBC candidates as in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. Since the applicant belongs to OBC category, he is also entitled to get benefit of such relaxation.
6. The applicants contention is that, according to the communication dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure A/1) he has been considered as fail in Part B of the question paper, on account of getting less then 50% marks in it. However, if relaxation provided to SC/ST candidates is given to him, since he has obtained 48% marks in Part B, he will certainly qualify in the written examination. Therefore, he should be given promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. Since against the availability of two unreserved and one reserved post, only one unreserved post has been filled, the applicant deserves to be considered for the other unreserved posts, and promoted as Junior Clerk.
7. The respondents, in their reply, submitted that the applicant was required to get 40% marks in Part A and 50% marks in Part B of the question paper in written test. The instructions regarding these standards are provided in the circular dated 05.02.2004 (Annexure R-1) of Divisional Railway Manager (for brevity DRM), Jabalpur, which has been issued after the approval of General Manager, West Central Railway. Since the applicant obtained just 24 Marks out of 50 in Part B, as he did not get the requisite marks in the Part B of the question paper, he failed to qualify in the written test.
8. In regard to the contention of the applicant pertaining to his answer to the question regarding full form of abbreviation O.B.C., being marked as incorrect, the respondents submitted that he had to write Other Backward Class and not Anya Pichhada Varg as has been written by him. It is true that the applicant had freedom to write answers in either Hindi or English, but translation of abbreviations was not excepted, and therefore, he was not given any marks for this answer.
9. In regard to the contention of the applicant pertaining to relaxation of standards for OBC candidates, the respondents submitted that no reservation is available to the OBC candidates for promotion and such reservation is restricted to direct recruitment only. Thus, the DOP&Ts Office Memorandum dated 13.10.1994 (Annexure A/12), providing for relaxation of standards in respect of written examinations and interview for OBC candidates, is not applicable in this case. The applicant has also mentioned regarding applicability in this case, of Railway Boards Circular R.B.E. No.144/2007, which provides for 60% qualifying marks in the paper and not in its individual part. However, the respondents submitted that this circular is applicable in case of promotion within the Group C and not for the cases of promotion from Group D to Group C as qualifying marks are quite different for this selection.
10. The respondents further submitted that the copy of Railway Boards letter dated 22.09.2003, which was referred in the communication dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure A-10) to the applicant, was never asked for by the applicant, and therefore, not supplied to him. Copy of this letter has now been enclosed as Annexure R-1.
11. The applicant submitted rejoinder to the reply of respondents, wherein, the claim of respondents regarding applicability of the norms of 40% and 50% marks separately for Part A and Part B of question paper has been challenged. The applicant claimed that the circular at Annexure R-1, which provides for these qualifying marks, is just an executive instruction, issued by the office of General Manager, and thus, can not override the main provisions of IREM. The applicants contention is that the provision for separate qualifying marks for Part A and Part B of the question paper, is not there, in the Advance Correction Slip No.155, by which Para 189 of the IREM has been amended.
12. The applicant further submitted that, apart from the answer to abbreviation of O.B.C., replied by him as Anya Pichhada Varg, the applicant had also answered full form of ADEN as Sahayak Mandal Abhiyanta which is also the correct answer. Thus, if two marks are provided for these two correct answers, the applicant obtains over 50% marks in Part B of the question paper also. The applicant has also questioned awarding of no marks for question No.10 (Kha), which according to him was solved correctly but no marks were awarded to him.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents annexed therewith. We have also gone through the written submissions filed by the applicant and respondents.
14. The promotion to higher grades in Group C is governed by Para 189 of IREM, which provides for promotion of railway servants in Group D categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists. This Para, has been amended by the Advance Correction Slip No.155 and provides for maximum of 85 marks on the basis of Written Test and 15 marks on the basis of Record of Service for the purpose of selection. However, no norms for the requisite marks in the written test have been specified for qualifying in the examination. However, the standard for qualifying the examination has subsequently been prescribed vide the letter dated 05.02.2004 (Annexure R/1) of DRM, Jabalpur, which is with the approval of General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur.
15. The applicant has mentioned about the criteria of 60% qualifying marks in the entire paper, referring to the Railway Board circular R.B.E. No.144/2007. However, this circular is in regard to promotions within Group C and not for Group D to Group C promotions. Thus, this circular is not applicable in the present case.
16. The applicant has contended that the circular dated 05.02.2004 (Annexure R-1) is an executive order which cannot override the main provision of IREM Para 189, as amended vide the Advance Correction Slip No.155. However, we find that this circular simply provides for certain norms for the qualifying examination which are not available in Para 189 of the IREM. As no norms were provided in the amended Para 189 of IREM, there is no question of overriding the provisions of IREM by this circular. Thus, by the circular dated 05.02.2004, provisions of Para 189 of IREM, have been supplemented and not overridden, as has been alleged by the applicant.
17. In regard to the contention of applicant about the full form of certain abbreviations in question No.8 of Part B of the question paper, we find no fault with the stand of the respondents that Hindi translation of abbreviations was not expected as answers to these questions. The issue regarding question No.10 (Kha), which has been additionally raised in the rejoinder is also not relevant at this stage as Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the correctness or incorrectness of answers in the answer books of individual candidates.
18. In regard to contention of the applicant pertaining to relaxation of standards in respect of written examinations and interview to OBC candidates, in view of DOPTs Office Memorandum dated 13.10.1994, we find that his Office Memorandum provides for relaxation of standards with the purpose to fulfill the quota earmarked to OBC. Since there was no reservation for OBCs in promotion, the provisions of this Office Memorandum are not relevant for the present case.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure A/1), dated 28.07.2008 (Annexure A/2) and dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure A-10), of the respondents in this case.
20. Thus, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member kc 6 Sub: Railways Selection OA No.198/2009 Page 6 of 6