Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Subhas Kr Das vs C L W (E R) on 14 May, 2019
U I '--
1 O.a.297 of 2016 t CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CALCUTTA BENCH, KOLKATA / O.A. 297 of 2016 Coram Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member V; \ Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
1. Subhas kr. Das, S/o Late B.K. Das, Aged about 52 years, Working for the post of Office Superintendent/GM(P)/CLW Ghittarapjah, r T '"iResidihg at Qrts No;4A,/Street No.:r21/B, V. , * P.O. & P.S. - Chittaranja; 4urdwan, lr-
West Bengaly.RIN - 713331.
r'-' 2,:;Narayan Gangqpadhy^ ■Kr.
^S/SjLate R.N. Gan'gopadhyay, $! Aged about 47.years, ■ '|j ' ''"Wo du n^fliSfte .of'Officfe i.
-
Superinten"deht/(P)/CLW Chittaranjan, .... ■Re'sidin|;ia^#s;No.;27A^Stf:|^t No. 23, RvO. 8rP.4: - Chittararvjan, Bdldwan, t .
Sir We'st Bengal, PIN-713331.
/-t i- r ^ ii
s^...,Applicants. r*
■V
Versus r.
a
j
■ 1. The Uhfonsoklndia, £
; /
General Manager,
V.
Chittaranjan Locomotive.Works, ■
\
Chittaranjan,
\
P.O. & P.S. - Chittaranjan,
District - Burdwan,
West Bengal - 713331. •**:
2. General Manager,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, P.O. & P.S. - Chittaranjan, District - Burdwan, West Bengal -713331.
3. Chief Personnel Officer, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, V ■rf-
;4: 2 o.a. 297 of 2016 n % P.O. & P.S. - Chi'ttaranjan, District - Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN - 713331.
f
4. Sr. Personnel Officer (G) Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, P.O. & P.S. - Chittaranjan, District - Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN-713331.
Respondents.
For the applicant Mr.. B. Chatterjee, Counsel For the respondents Mr. K. Sarkar, Counsel Reserved on : 22.04.2019-' Date ofvOrder:
i H ■V
r.
ORDER It '
Per: Bidisha Baneriee. Judicial Member %>• Two applicants hafepreferred this OA, to seekfollowing reliefs:
•i j "8.0. An orden granting fedVe tfr ^ Rule 4(5)0) of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1$87 to move this application jointly.
\ -•
b. Leave 'may be granted to move this. Original-'Appljcation without
serving copy of the Original ■Application to the respofidentsf c. An order quashing the selection notice Nd'$jMA/GS/88-(A) Pt.VII dated: 28-05-2014 (Annexure A-i) so far as period of Assessment is concerned upon declaration that the same is void and ultra-vires for not being inconformity of the rules, laws equality, instruction and the Constitution of India.
d. Any rule or instructions contrary to the principle of equality incepting seniority may be declared void and/or inoperative and non-est e. The respondent Authority may kindly be directed to determine and publish integrated/ inter-se seniority list of all the eligible prospective candidates in accordance with law, constitutional mandates conforming the principles of equity, equality, conscience and good sense after treating the assessment period from 14.01.2013 instead of 01.04.2013.
-■•■I
m j 3 o.a. 297 of 2016
51/
/• An order directing the official respondents
r; . . . „ to produce/ caused
production of all relevant records pertaining to the instant matter; I g. And to pass any other order or orders* direction or directions as your h Lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. The applicants have preferred this Application assailing violation of Clause 8 of the Notification for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO)/AWO/Assistant Secretary to General Manager, in Group "B" Service, against 70% quota of Personnel Department vide Notice No. GMA/GS/88-(A)Pt.VII dated 28.05.2014 issued by Senior Personnel Officer (G) for General manager (P) CLW, Chittaranjan.
L. V' They are, aggrieved,: as without disposing of Their representations, the respondent authorities have proceeded to hold viva voce and are going td finalize r ■i the Panel for the post in question, without addressing and redressing their 1 grievance'applicants.
The notification,dated 25.8.14 is as under:
"Sub: - Formation of a panel for the post of APO/AWd/Assft. Secf. To GM in Group 'B' Service against 70% vacancies in Personnel Department of CLW.
Last date of receipt of application:- 30.06.2014(A/N)
1. It has been decided to hold a selection for formation of a panel of 04 (four) candidates for promotion to the post of APO/AWD/Asstt Secy, to GM in Group 'B' service in PB-2, Pay Band Rs. 9,300-34,800/- in GP Rs.
4800/- against 70% quota in Personnel Department of CLW as per following reservation:-
MODE OF SELECTION UR SC ST Total 70% 03 01 04
2. Assessment Period:- 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2015
3. Eligibility :- All permanent Group 'C staff belonging to the categories mentioned below who have put in minimum 03 years non-fortuitous service in grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- + GP Rs. 4200/- and above and fulfil the conditions laid down below as on 01.04.2013 are eligible to be considered for this selection. As per Para 203.2 of IREM and provisions in relevant recruitment rules, if a junior employee is considered for 70% I 4 o.a.297 of 2016 selection by virtue of his satisfying the relevant minimum service conditions, all persons senior to him shall be held to be eligible, notwithstanding the position that they do not fulfil the requisite minimum service condition.
a. All Ministerial staff of Personnel Department, Mech. & Elect(G), Civil, Stores(CRJ/HWH & Kol) & TKO who have put in minimum 3 years non- fortuitous service in grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- + GP Rs. 4200/- and above are eligible.
b. All Chief Law Assistants who have put in minimum 3 years year non- fortuitous service in grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- + GP Rs. 4600/- and above are eligible. Law Assistants & Chief Law Assistants in the event of their selection in Group 'B' for the posts of APO/AWO/Asstt. Secy. To GM will have to exercise an option indicating clear choice for promotion to Gr 'B' in only one category, out of the avenue available to them i.e. either APO/AWO/Asstt. Secy. To GM or ALO/Estate Officer in writing within 30 days ofthe result of the selection. Option one exercised should be treated as final undersextant rules. c. Ministerial1 staff in the.-departments like Stores; Jime 'Office and also ministerial staff .of other departments excluding Hindi organization and Accounts Department who have put in a minimum 3 years non- fortuitous service in grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- + GP Rs.'4200/- and above arefeligible p^rovidedjthey^'do-'hot hpye adequate avenue of .. J)fomotiot$xtd*Group^$'Z$b£f*inr$heir'*owW*departm'elTts and also ^subject tdAhe^conditioii^Hqi^ji'e^ wilhexercise optiomm. wrifing for ^promotion/to the^post^f /tPO/AWO/AssttJsecy. to GM witHin one month of the result of the selection. Option once exercised 'will be treated as final under extant rules. * d. All Stenographers in Grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- +V6P Rs. '4200/- and aboye-whq hdve put in 'p minimum 3 years non-fortuitous service are eligible-Stenographers 'imthe event'SfMeing selected in Gr. 'B' for the posts of APO/AWO/Asstt. Secy, to GM will' have to exercise an option indicating clear choice for promotion to Gr. 'B' in one category either in APO/AWO/Asstt. Secy, to GM or PS Gr. l in Gr; 'B' service in writing within one month of the result of theyselection. Option once exercise shobld.be treated as final under extant rules."
3. The clause 8 of the Notification dated 28.5.2014^35 referred to supra, reads as under:
"8. The eligibility list of the employees as per integrated seniority will be notified which may be got noted by the candidates. Representation, if any, regarding the same should be submitted within 15 days of its publication to the concerned Establishment Office under advice to this office it will be the personal responsibility of the controlling officer to ensure that no complaint whatsoever arises on future date."
a, wii 5 o.a.297 of 2016 \1! i
4. The applicants seem to be particularly aggrieved with the fixation of Assessment period as 1.4.13 - 30.9.15, due to fact that several juniors, between 14.1.13 - 1.4.13 have been promoted to higher grades and therefore they would be enbioc senior, placed over and above the applicant in the panel, that is drawn up as per seniority and any employee qualifying in the said selection from the higher Grade would rank senior and would be empanelled in view of such interse/integrated seniority above "the .applicants by virtue of holding higher " s:-'t S f IT' '•< . N. \ ^ * ! "" ' t / ^ Grade. In support the applicants have cited the case/8$ two persons namely Sri *>•' % •*5 Partha Bose and' Sri Amitabha. GHiakraBlorty, promoted to'the Grade Pay of Rs.
v . A *.
\ 1 ■■ ' %
4600/- and empanelled for qualifying in'; the yiva,vocfetest as befdre 01.04.2013 who got promotion V 1 /// they Sere juniors to \ ffi. i the applicants in Grade^Pay of Rs. 4200/^glHeved as such, before'publication of viva voce tPst and the ffdal^anel;'twbe ^plpikan&ma&e^epresentatioIjSj (Anpexure ^ f / | | A-8 collectively to the Origi^liv-Application) Inter.:alj^ st^jng that the cut pff date .. t f should have been 14.01.20-13 instead of 1.4.13' as the earlier assessment of , I 'j .** *. r., ' ' • ~ / .f"
Assistant Stale Grpup^B vacancies^of Perspnnel Department wap" made upto 1;*X . .......... , - ■, / / 13.01.2013 (Anri'exuresRJr3 to the'Rejoihder)? the applicantsWament that their • ;?-
representations have fallen to deaf ears. Furtherr'they have been denied opportunity to make representation earlier due to non-adherence of the Clause 8 of the Notice dated 28.05.2014.
5. The respondents have refuted their claim by submitting as under:
In Para 24 of the said notification dated 28.5.2014, incumbents were advised to submit representation, if any, arising out of the contents of notification, or, on any other related matter, by 16.6.2014 to Sr. Personnel Officer r •e. * 6 0.3. 297 of 2016 h's: .* v-r •1 / (Gaz.) through proper channel after which no representation on the notification / would be entertainable.
i ■ i i Both the petitioners submitted their appeal to the Respondent No. 3 i.e. CPO/CLW only on 3.2.2016 i.e. after completion of written test of 70% selection for the post of APO/AWO/Asstt. Secy, to GM that was held on 5.12.2015 and 30.12.2015 (supplementary) and publication of result and therefore long after the time limit, as per notification was over.
r :
They have further averred that in Paras 12,13,14 and 15 of the Notification No. GMA/GS/SSiAlPteVIII dated.-28i5l2-0T4,' :it. was clearly''mentioned that the r7 'r-- ■r /piV.
E S. prescribed qualifying manicpfqr the written^examination is 60% apd relaxation in i qualifying marks is provided to reserved candidates in terms of exterit instruction isk s of Railway^Board. Th^3h1didSTe|^wfio'§ect|'n|dj)Fescri-Be<d marks in the Written . \ ^ Si; ^ ' ';;t. '■'■■x . M t i i gr r *.u examinatibh^are sent for meiJical examination. On^sUfcessful clearance iof the ■M medical examination the candidates are-called'for,.viva-voce test to the extent of s-
6th times the no.,df vacahcies- in order of marks obtain'&'d^h the writtemtest. The Vv" / marks on the records"bf service,also count as perJnstructiph of Railway Board.
As per Master Circular 68 of the Railway Board,^Para thereof, for the selection of APO (70%), there: exists no bar/ restrict-ioh'Tor limiting the number of candidates who volunteer for APO (70%) selection. Naturally all staff of Ministerial Cadre-Stenographer, CLA, Typist, etc. volunteer for the selection.
Integrated seniority is published only after completion of written test.
As per Master Circular 68 of Railway Board, particularly Para 6.6.2 thereof, "for the viva-voce test, successful candidates to the extent of six times the number of vacancy should be called strictly in the order of marks obtained".
/ ___ / f..,.
7 o.a. 297 of 2016 In the instant selection, only six numbers of candidates, against 03 (three) posts and 07 (seven) number of candidates against 01 (one) SX. post under 'Best Among he Failed Scheme' qualified for viva-voce as noticed vide General Manager Memorandum No. GMA/COB/APO(70%)/2015, dated 12.01.2016. ' In this selection, integrated seniority of those who qualify the written test and are called for viva-voce test, are maintained by the railway administration. Publishing of the integrated seniority list before conducting written test for APO (70%) selection is not feasible as candidates appear fromtdjfferent streams. , The respondents have further submitted that "the assessment period for the selection had been.takemas 01.04.2013^630X9.2015 and its cut-off date i1* 'i $ V / £-'• for eligibility'was 01.04ib'BiorGandidates.Who volunteer for the^electibn under 70% without any limitation on numberof candidates as per Master Circular 68 of Railway Board in Para 876'; 1".
f.
K' 'I The -respondents haye.alleged that^when the notice was published on 28.05.2015, clearly the.-cut-off date specifying, both-the petitioners could have ' Vk' . r t ' immediately represented against such cut-off date fixation to.#G.M.^hstead they /' sought to represent only after publication of result of written examination. They have averred that the assessment period was taken as. 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2015 to maintain the selection calendar as per instruction of the competent authority and all assessment period of Gr. B scale of CLW was modified and set from 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2015 for the sake of practical assessment and clarity.
Moreover, they contend that in terms of Para 3.2 of Master Circular 68 a suitable calendar would be drawn depending on position on each Railway whereas the previous selection assessment period was taken from 04.01.2011 in / 8 o.a. 297 of 2016 terms of para 5.1 or Master Circular 68 Realistic Assessment of Vacancies ought to r i ! be made. Hence an assessment from mid-month was not practicable, and the accrual of actual vacancies were taken into consideration.
The respondents have revealed that one of the petitioners who filed the instant petition was the in-charge of the dealing section where the Gr. B selection of CLW is maintained while assessment of the selection was done by the petitioner No. 2.
The respondents haVe averred that whilethe^petitioners. have claimed that the eligibility for-volunteering for.select'ibnr'ofAPO (70%) should be,!Grade Pay Rs.
/ 4200/- of nonvfortuitous service of three years*as pe$Rara 320<Jof IREM'Vol. I, but "v as per Master Circulates o'f^Railvyayl;Board-^for 13r. (^selection?asfin P-ara 9.1 thereof, employees ffom'the diffeKerit^stfeahis a re''eligible for appearing in the selection. Their integrated^ seniority; for the purppse of the selection was r» •v \ v" i.
i l determinbd^bn the basis '6%total length Of nbn-ioftuitous serviceTendlred in '■ : ' _ /
- .... A Grade 6500-10500/- now -GP Rs. 4200/- (6th CPC) and'above. In other vyords the date of appointment In such .grade pay on a •non-fo.rtu'itous service was the . * " / j?
r ■ / / criterion. The applicants were holding the Grade Pay of Rs7 42007- and therefore would naturally rank below those in the Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- . However, having qualified in the written test they were called for viva-voce as per Memorandum dated 12.01.2016 and as they ranked junior and were not taken in the consideration for final select list of APO (70%) as per panel issued on dated 17.02.2016.
The respondents have claimed that whenever, staff from different streams are called for the 70% selection, the inter-se-seniority has to reckon for actual tt r r , i \ 9 o.a. 297 of 2016 r f seniority. Such examination is relatively simpler compared to 30% selection 1 7 mainly to accommodate the senior employees. The selection criterion for 30% is \r'i w§ I more stringent and wholly on merit while 70% selection is done to safeguard the interest of seniors, who have rendered much longer service. Hence, the question of quashing the panel on the basis of seniority will contravene the very objective of 70% selection.
6. To counter the respondents, in the rejoinder the applicant has submitted that in every 70% selection-'-viz. fElectfJcaLfMeehanical, Stores etc. integrated
-
seniority is published first. APO selection cannot be an exception.
! The applicants have^pleadfed that to^be'suita-bje, subject to relaxation for .r¥^v,, - j: ;; / ^^ , \ reserved category candidates? bnb ;4iias .to . secure ^f0% marks , in '^written examination and 60% in aggregate. Thereafter, as - per seniority suitable candidates; are put in:%i<5.-Hi!St ,acc6rdihg'•'t<i',-.th^rr*. seniority in the integrated ■i.
"W r
>
i*
•% !■
seniority list-'which is required to.j6e prepared for this'purpose.
The manner in which successful candidates are arranged in the panel, being r :* depicted as under / /■ •r (1) Those securing 80% marks and above are graded as 'Outstanding'.
(2) Those securing between«60%,and,79% marks are graded as 'Good'.
The panel consists of employees who qualify in the selection, corresponding to the number of vacancies for which selection was held.
Employees securing gradation 'Outstanding' are placed on top followed by those securing gradation 'Good', interse seniority within each group being maintained.
■ ....V-} .
f
1
10 o.a. 297 of 2016
1'
. V
As per para 18 of Master Circular No. 68, employees selected for promotion il:iv to Group 'B' service either on a regular basis or on ad hoc basis should be fit In all 1* respects including physical fitness for the duties assigned to the particular category of posts to which the promotion is made. Group 'C employees qualifying in the written test for promotion to Group '8' posts but not passing the prescribed medical standard should not be called for viva-voce.
The applicants have averred that in the instant selection, 6 (Six) candidates ;
against 03 (Three) UR posts includihguthe applicant-s and 07 (Seven) candidates >*• 3 f.
against 01 (One) No. rof SC post qualified in the writfen^test and passed the prescribed Medical examination and were calfedNfor viva voce test. As the •2 v * 1 *,7u r candidates were fromythfee. different^seniority .unitshit was a 'mustVfor the I •S' ii.c1*-• .- l*'> respondents'to publish^ They^have alleged the panel was published "on Wr6hg/er.ronedus seniority". The ^applicants .have further /* / ; r '■* ,r\., ' W : ■ alleged that/ at paragraph, ;8 oir the said NptifiGation dated 28.05.2014, the 'XiV-, - ..i i-
respondent authority indicated!!''-ifhat/^seniority list had>to be notified and representation, If any,-regarding the same should be submitted within 15 days of / that publication to the concerned Establishment Office under advice to the office of Sr. Personnel Officer (G) to-the ensure that no complaint whatsoever arises on future date, but in fact the authorities have never published any integrated seniority list of eligible candidates apprehending that the same would invite representations which would interrupt them from promoting their prior-chosen men, in utter violation of Railway Boards instructions and stipulation in the notification dated 28.05.2014.
7. Ld. Counsels were heard and the materials on record were perused.
1I 11 o.a. 297 of 2016
8. The discernible facts are as under:
(i) The result of written examination, as published on 12.1.16, is as follows:
SI. Name (S/Shri) Community Designation Remarks No.
1. Ashutosh Ray SC Ch. OS/Personnel Qualified for viva-voce test against Ol(one) SC post in terms of "Best amongst the failed"
scheme.
2. Shiv Balak Kumar UR CLA/Personnel Not qualified for viva-
Sinha voce test
S. Partha Bose .UR CS&WI/A'dmh -Qualified for viva-voce
test
4. Krishna ^.Chandra ST OS/TPT-57, ' G': ^ Qualified for viva-voce
Hansdah-,. :>Branch v test. !
•c
r-
5. Amtav.a chakraborty •' UR CS&Wl/Personnel Qualified' for viva-voce
•* 1.-
test .
6. Kambhatla Suriya. UR .Ch.O'S/Pe.rsonnel Not qualified for viva-
-? vocetest3 ?
7. Tapas Mandal ' .. sc Qualified for viva-voce
^• -r-iv^S/G/Mechanilal test against Ol(one) SC
• v i' /'
post in'terms of "Best
amongst the failed"
r scheme.,
8. Lai Mohan Tudu ST Ch. OS/Personnel Not qualified for viva-
voce test
T*
9. Bishnu Prasad^Naik / SC : .CS&Wl/Personnel Qualified for .viva-voce
.•y .j
nest against Ol(one) SC
I post in terrhs of "Best
amongst the failed"
scheme.
10. Omkar Nath Tiwari UR"""- CLA/Perspnnel Not qualified for viva-
voce test
11. Arindam Hira SC Ch. OS ^Qualified for viva-voce
Qy.GPO(W) Office test against Ol(one) SC post in terms of "Best amongst the failed"
scheme,
12. Mrittunjoy Karmakar UR C.V.I/Vig. Admn Not qualified for viva-
voce test
13. Pran Ballav Mondal SC Ch OS/Personnel Qualified for viva-voce test
14. Babul Das UR CS&Wl/Personnel Not qualified for viva-
voce test
15. Ramesh Kumar ST ' Steno Gr Not qualified for viva-
Bhagat l/D&D/CLW voce test
16. Subhas Kumar Das UR OS/Admn Qualified for viva-voce
test
17. Anadi Bhusan Biswas SC Ch.OS/GM(P) Qualified for viva-voce
test against 01{one) SC
post in terms of "Best
f
12 o,a. 297 of 2016
amongst the failed"
pi
scheme.__________
18. Bidyut Kumar UR OS/Mechanical Not qualified for viva-
/
Chauopadhyay voce test
19. Bikash Biswas SC Ch. OS/SF Qualified for viva-voce
test against Ol(one) SC
post In terms of "Best
amongst the failed"
scheme.
20. Anand Kumar UR OS/Personnel Not qualified for viva-
voce test
21. Narayan UR OS/Personnel Qualified for viva-voce
Gangopadhyay test
22. Dinesh Paswan SC Ch. OS & Sports Qualified for viva-voce
Organizer test against Ol(one) SC
post in terms of "Best
amongst the failed"
scheme.
rf1.
'
tf-'
The applicaptsTigure at Srl.,Nos; 16^and ;21 of the list i- V
(») The notification, specifying the assessment peribd as'-1.4.13 to
:
30.9.island cut dfrd^teJor4eterminihg4ligib1lit^as 1.4.13^v,as published
-•riyi .. B , on 28.5.14.fe- 1
It is true that.the applicants rie\/erobjected>'to fixation .of cut of date ■■ . . 1 ; ^ f.
for eligibility as 1.4.i3.-Rather they Ihappjly^'ubjected themselves^ to the .= selection withoUt;demur, therefore they are,.estqpped b'y their conduct to raise hue and cry over the fixation of cut of date ofeligibiility.
.?
' f
(iii) The applicaht- have claimed that several juniors were promoted to GP of 4600/- between 14.1.13 and 1.4.13, but it seems that they never raised any objection when their juniors were allegedly allowed to steal a march over and above them and placed in a higher grade pay (GP in short) of Rs.
4600/- while the applicants languished in the lower GP of Rs. 4200/-.
(iv) When the notification dated 28.5.14 would expressly and explicitly provide that all permanent Group 'C' staff who have put in minimum 03 nr i 13 o.a. 297 of 2016 1 y years non-fortuitous service in grade Rs. 9,300-34,800/- + GP Rs. 4200/-
-4 / "and above" and fulfil the conditions therein as on 01.04.2013. are eligible to be considered for this selection, the reason why they feel aggrieved due to their placement below persons with higher grade pay, is incomprehensible.
(v) Further the notification specified that "eligible staff who fulfil the condition laid down in para-3 above and desirous of being considered for the selection should submit their applications in-the prescribed form as in M Annexure-l bv;3Q-06-2014 latest through proper channel to their respective Personnel/Establishment Officers of the concerned, department of notification", while "The Action to be taken on receipt of application" was f;
■v:-
thus:
.k.
"5. All .Personnel Branch Officers/Controlling Officers on receipt of applications from the. candidates wijl be^tequired to verify.vthe eligibility of the staff who volunteer for the selection and forward-the.sarrfe to this office by i0£7h2014>positively. The-ha'mes of the employees, however, should be^advised'in .the.kOrder of seniority.:-The application without eligibility certificate will not be entertainedr'No direct applications from any candidate will be entertained by CPO's Gazetted: Section. It must be ensured to send the application of eligible employees only, The lien of each applicant especially of staff on deputation may be checked and certified."
Vet, the applicants are aggrieved as arrangement of names was made as per seniority, when there is nothing on record to show that seniority was violated in any manner, or was not maintained when it was quite natural and obvious that incumbents in GP of 4600/- were to rank above those in the GP of 4200/-.
(vi) We note, that the paragraph 8 of notification stipulates as under:
I
14 o.a. 297 of 2016 "8. The eligibility list of the employees as per integrated seniority will benotified which may be got noted by the candidates. Representation, if any, regarding the same should be submitted within 15 days of its publication to the concerned Establishment Office under advice to this office. It will be the personal responsibility of the controlling officer to ensure that no complaint whatsoever arises on future date."
In terms of the notification, it was imperative for the respondents that while preparing the integrated seniority list, such employees in GP 4600/- would be placed above those in GP 4200/- and such placement was obvious without any iota of doubt. The applicants who belonged to GP 4200/- is quarrelling with those in GP 4600/-. Their quarrel is not against \ f ft f , inter-se seniority Vis^vis identical GP employees,;i.e. those in GP 4200/-.
1 \
(vii) Nevertheless) we also note'the Format qfvtxamination as ■f • f. .•t' Vm;
\ . • / ■
* \
under: ; ? 7 f.*
l .
.r
\''
V. •'
.i
r ■ tr- ■
y-t .
tJ • 1.
"11. FORMAT OF EXAMINATION:- i
i
! •Ufc..
Y J
The subjects for'the examination and; marks allotted foTeachj of the Vs-* . »*<'*♦'* - I* % d .•papers and vivarvocerare as under: ^ * -j •' "Q'.S f' i : -
Prescribed Max.^Mark's liQualifying^Marks Remarks ' i i papers .r One-paper pn- -.150 90 (Out\of 150 marks the prp'fessional • V professional subject will subject 'rand S''' 'carry at least/lOO marks 15 Establishment. 'v 'mark's will/be allotted on And Financial qdestions^ of official Rules. language rules & policies, answering of which will be ' optional).
(B) (i) Record 25 + 25 = 50 30 of (Including at least
service 15 marks in
(ii) Viva- Record of Service)
voce
12. The marks prescribed for qualifying in the written examination is 60%. Relaxation in qualifying marks will be provided to reserved candidates in terms of extant instructions of Railway Board.
13. Medical Examination: - The employees who secure prescribed marks in the written examination will be sent for Medical Examination as applicable to them.
$
i
fi 15 o.a. 297 of 2016
14. Viva-voce:- On passing the Medical Examination, such employees will be called for Viva-Voce test. For the viva-voce test, successful candidates to the extent of six times the number of vacancies will be called for viva voce in the 1 order of marks obtained in the written test.
15. The marks on Records of Service will be given on the basis of Railway Board's instructions/, The Format clearly and indubitably establishes the procedure of first sending the written qualified candidates for their medical examination and then call medically fit candidates for viva. We note that the respondents, who have emphatically ayerred that the "incumbents who secured ' • ' * **Vr ' '> t.
i
--.i' i if- tf/ qualifying marks absent for Medical Examin^tionfand the'n.for viva", are at the same time, conspicuous by their silence, whether medical-examination
- '• ''' M* 'r- ' of written qualified|candidafes was Conducted pnior to holding viva and had it been! so con(^cfed^',wfe;t4er^e«e^was • ahy^l'ance of elimination of P / K r,'-.
k senior-unfit candidates giving :advantage to' theitjlinior counterparts. ON * ( v'' this scpre the appIiMnts.rhay/havela^calse.
► S
'4*ai5F s
-•
''V ' I
(viii) We would further decipherthat while the break.up of the. posts was >• 3 UR and ! SC/the two-UR category applicantsiigure at Serial nors. 3 & 4 out / j-
of the UR candidates who qualified for viva voce test, the names being r1' arranged as under:
tf SI. Name (S/Shri) Commu Designation Remarks No. nity
3. Partha Bose UR CS&WI/Admn Qualified for viva-
voce test
5. Amitava UR CS&WI/Personnel Qualified for viva-
Chakraborty voce test
16. Subhas Kumar Das UR OS/Admn. Qualified for viva-
voce test
21. Narayan UR OS/Personnel Qualified for viva-
Gangopadhyay voce test
5 •!
16 o.a. 297 of 2016
While the reason for non inclusion of applicant no. 2, is apparent and
1.:j •v obvious, as he stood fourth, the non inclusion of applicant no. 1 against the i last UR vacancy, is incomprehensible.
(ix) Furthermore, the respondents have emphatically averred that 6 f numbers of candidates, against 03 (three) UR vacant posts and 07 (seven) number of candidates against 01 (one) SX. post under 'Best Among the Failed Scheme' qualified for viva-voce, while the result of written examination shows that other than one Pran Ballav Mondal (SC) and Krishna Chandra Hansda, (ST) all the other 7 SC candidates qualified under "Best amongst the failed" scheme and only 4 UR cleared for viva.
-V The reaso.n''for inclusion of "6" candidatesjUfnder UR category thus could noCbe-discerned^#Helfier'i^T65hdol (SC) arid Hnasda (ST) were v -1 | I /'•%. \ included«under UR categor^fofttheir ifnerit, is?riot apparent.^ ,:.C" _ - -v... -v «•
9. In view of the apparent and glaring.ihconsistencidS in selection process as 5 pointed out supra, thesapplicant;s,m|yi!iay,e;ienuine grolbds for agitating against their non inclusion in th'efinal pahelv Their mariifest'dissatisfaction and reason-for ■w. • S' harbouring- a grudge against the administration..-Tnay not be baseless. Their V \ r* / outrage seems to^be qbife'ju.stified.
,1 V "v.
/■ '•t
10. Accordingly,-it is ordered that the Sr. P.0 shall accbrd a personal hearing to the applicants, consider their grievance, as enumerated-supra-ih accordance with law and issue a reasoned and speaking order w'lthim'S months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In the event, the officer feels that the applicants were wrongly deprived, suitable steps shall be taken for their inclusion in the panel with consequential benefits of seniority & notional fixation of pay.
/ 17 o.a. 297 of 2016
12. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(Bidisha Ba^erjee) 17 (Dr. Nandita Crttatterjee) Judicial Member Administrative Member drh * .*f * .. rl fv %
-i r .• i.. ^' 4 f y*" •>r*v . 1.7 -1 vV». i •«r- s v* . .•ji ?
• * :J
*,«
^•v< -
\
V