Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Kumar Mishra & Others vs Union Of India Through on 14 July, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.898/2008 MA No.748/2008 New Delhi this the 14th day of July, 2009. Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Amit Kumar Mishra & Others -Applicants (By Advocate Shri B.S. Mainee) -Versus- Union of India through: 1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Shailendra Tiwari) O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Shanker Raju, Member (J):
Applicants impugn respondents order dated 17.3.2008, whereby the provisional panel formed pursuant to selection for the post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ERC) against promotion quota has been cancelled and the selection process was restarted from the stage of declaration of results of written test.
2. Applicants who are Commercial Clerks, on a selection advertised for the posts to fill up 106 posts, from the willing staff like Commercial Clerks, preferred their applications. In pursuance thereof a written examination was conducted on 3.12.2006, where 134 candidates appeared, result of which was declared on 7.2.2007. 90 candidates were called, including applicants. After declaration of the result of the written examination, papers were forwarded to the DPC for finalization of the panel. Accordingly, 73 candidates have been placed in the panel, except applicant No.1, who was placed under sealed cover and after the disciplinary proceedings against him have been finalized a final panel was declared on 12.4.2007. The sealed cover adopted in his case was sought to be open.
3. Vide impugned orders, without giving reasons the selection process was cancelled and fresh vigilance clearance was sought.
4. Applicants in this OA would contend that when valid process has been taken earlier and 73 candidates have been recommended on the panel, they have a right to be promoted as ERC. Cancellation of the entire selection process without any reason on the pressure of trade unions, whose candidates have not found place in the panel, is arbitrary. It is stated that in a hush-hush manner the entire selection process has been cancelled. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh, 2004 (1) SLJ 306, to contend that it is not fair to cancel the entire selection process if the irregular beneficiaries can be identified and weeded out.
5. On the other hand, respondents in their reply admitted that a panel of 73 candidates was issued on 12.4.2007. It is also stated that the result of applicant No.1, Amit Kumar Sharma, was not declared but on the advice of Divisional Traffic Manager dated 16.7.2008, as the first chargesheet was cancelled, further action for opening of the sealed cover and placement of the name in the panel has been taken. Respondents in their reply states that on declaration of provisional panel, one of the unions and some other candidates asked for review, and on examination it was noticed that selection being general, where candidates from several streams applied, many of the candidates were in the initial grade where no CRs are written. In such cases a working report was obtained for the last three years and marks were awarded by the DPC. In several cases where the working reports were satisfactory, the DPC had awarded 4 marks, which is equivalent to Average grading in the CRs. Accordingly, to resolve the issue as per Headquarters instructions, it was decided that only one working report of the period immediately preceding the selection shall be prepared and on the basis of Railway Boards letter dated 8.9.2005, where the Apex Court ruled against cancellation of examination unless warranted by a categorical finding that there has been a widespread infirmity of all pervasive nature, it was decided to restart the selection from the stage of declaration of the result of written examination and DPC should call for the working report afresh. Accordingly, on re-examination as per the latest recommendation few candidates, who were earlier on the panel, have now been shown unsuitable but there were also instances where some candidates who had earlier been placed on the panel on relaxed standards were now being rated as outstanding. Accordingly, because of the administrative error certain candidates are found unsuitable.
6. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, despite selection one has no indefeasible right to be considered for promotion. However, the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh, 2004 SCC (L&S) 316 while reiterating the aforesaid legal proposition held that when the selection process reveals gross irregularities, corrective measures can be adopted.
7. In Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. State of J & K, 2008 (4) SCC 273 in recruitment process by PSC, certain corrective step on finding discrepancies has been found to be apt in law. In our considered view the others who had a right to be considered in true letter and spirit as per rules the working report immediately preceding the year of selection now being sought, what has been done is to re-examine the rival merits of candidates from different streams after the result of the written examination was declared as to correct the gross irregularities cropped up in the selection. As such, the aforesaid is not cancellation of entire selection but selection has been restarted from the stage the infirmities have been found. The applicants who have qualified in the written test, as per their service record, they shall also be considered along with others, does not show any arbitrariness or illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondents. The OA is found bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Shanker Raju) Member (A) Member (J) San.