Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Alaguraj vs M/O Railways on 2 June, 2020
1 of 10
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MADRAS BENCH
Dated Tuesday the 2nd day of June Two Thousand And Twenty
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. P. MADHAVAN, MEMBER(J)
THE HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, MEMBER(A)
O.A.310/858/2013
S. Alaguraj,
Staff & Welfare Inspector,
Office of Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai-600 003.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: M/s. Ratio Legis)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. by
The General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003;
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003;
3. Mr. M. Syed Sirajuddin,
Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector,
Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala State;
4. Mr. K. Srinivasulu,
Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector,
Southern Railway,
Chennai Division, Park Town,
Chennai-600 003;
2 of 10
5 Mr. P. Ramachandran,
Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector,
(Now working as Chief Vigilance Inspector),
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai-600 003;
6. Mr. G. Balasubramanian,
Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector,
Southern Railway, Hd. Qrs.,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003;
7. Mr. Venkataraman,
Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector,
Southern Railway,
Tiruchchirappalli Division,
Tiruchchirappalli- 620 020.
.....Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Y. Prakash (R 1 & R2 )
3 of 10
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. P. Madhavan, Member(J)) This is an OA filed seeking following relief:-
"to set aside the impugned order No.P (GS)Misc/2012 dated 13.02.2013 (Annexure A-12, Page 69) and Panel Notification No. P(GS)/312/XI/1 dated 09.02.2012 (Annexure A-2), page-16) of the 2nd Respondent, the Chief Personnel Officer and further to direct the Respondents to form a fresh panel including the name of the applicant in the selection panel in the appropriate place for the post of Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector in PB2 Rs.9300- 34800 with Grade Pay Rs.4600/- and promote the applicant as Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector with all consequential benefits in accordance with law and thus render justice."
2. The facts leading to this case can be summarized as follows:-
The applicant who was working as Staff and Welfare Inspector had applied for the LDCE examination for the post of Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector as per Annexure A-I0 notification dated 13.09.2011. The applicant participated in the LDCE and respondents published a select list of five persons dated 09.02.2012 vide Annexure A-2.
4 of 10
3. According to the applicant, the respondents had also accepted applications from employees who had obtained Degree/Post Graduation directly from open university without having 10+2+3 schooling. The Selection Committee had not followed the procedure followed in earlier selections. The marks were not given fully for correct answers. The applicant ought to have been granted one more mark for question No.1 in Part B (Annexure A-13). The marks granted for awards are not proper. The applicant ought to have been granted two more marks for award. The marks awarded for qualification by the selection committee was not correct. If the committee had followed the procedure adopted by earlier committees, the applicant should have been given 1.85 marks more than Respondent No.3. The applicant had got 71.35 marks and Respondent No.3 got 71.50 marks. If full marks were given for the mathematical question, he would have got 2.70 marks more.
4. The respondents had permitted ineligible persons to participate in the selection. The respondent No.3 had not undergone 10+2+3 and hence he is ineligible. So, the applicant seeks the relief of quashing the list and giving appointment to him.
5 of 10
5. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared and filed a detailed reply. According to them, the selection procedure consists of marks given for written examination and assessment of service records. 85% weightage is given for written examination and 15% for the service records. In the service records, the committee had given the following marks:-
1. Marks for educational qualification - 5 marks;
2. Marks for APAR - 5 marks ;
3. Marks for entries in SR - 5 marks.
The Railway Board has given guidelines to be followed by Members of Selection Committee vide E(NG)1/89/PM-2/6 dated 31.1.90 for giving marks for Record of Service as under:-
"The committee Members shall be jointly responsible for deciding the method of giving marks for the record of service and once this method is agreed upon, all the Members should allot only the same number of marks under this column. To serve as a guideline, it is suggested that in the Selections from Class-III to Class III, 3 marks should be allotted for 'Good' and Fit for 'promotion'. 4 marks for 'Very Good' and 5 marks for 'OUTSTANDING' per year for last 3 years Confidential Reports. Thus the person who gets 'Good' and 'Fit' for promotion' in the Confidential Reports for the last three years, which are only to be considered, will obtain 9 marks, while an employee who has obtained 6 of 10 'Outstanding' in the Confidential Reports for the last three years will get a maximum of 15 marks. In addition, the entries made in S.Rs in respect of awards and punishments given have to be taken into consideration. For every cash Award/ Merit Certificate, one mark should be added subject to the maximum of 15 marks under record of service. For major penalties during the three years under consideration, one mark should be deducted and for minor penalties ½ marks.
It is clarified that the above are only guidelines and if necessary, depending upon the circumstances, the Members of the Committee are fully competent to lay down their own guidelines. However, if different guidelines are followed, the same should be spelt out and it shall be uniformly applied to all the candidates."
As per the guidelines, committee had given marks under various heads as follows:-
"i. One mark awarded for Diploma/PG Dip. In computer Application/Science;
ii. No marks have been awarded for possessing Typewriting/Translation/Shorthand and Diploma in Engg & Hindi;
iii. B.L. Degree is treated on par with Post Graduation;
iv. B.G.L. Degree (without B.L.) is treated on par with diploma/PG Dip. And awarded one mark; v. In respect of marks for awards, the award given during Rly. Week Celebrations at the level of Rly Bd., 7 of 10 GM.HOD & CWW and award for 'Person of the Month' only are considered;
vi. Some of the APARs have been accepted by the lower authority than HOD as prescribed in RBE No. 32/1988. As these APARs if sent to the competent authority after publication of written test results, it may get influenced by the result of the selection and make a subjective rather than an objective assessment. Hence the APARs as sent by the Divisions/Units are considered as it is."
6. There was no deviation done by the selection committee in the above matters. The committee consisted of two Personnel Branch Officers and one Officer from the Accounts Department. They had carefully verified the records of candidates. They are not expected to look into the previous selection files to apply their minds for awarding marks.
7. As regards the question and marks given to Part B, the questions are descriptive and not of objective type. There is no rule to give full marks if answer is correct. It is for the evaluating officer to examine the answer and award mark. In the case of applicant, he was given 9 marks out of 10. So there was no irregularity as alleged in giving the marks. The respondents admit that the applicant had worked in a group of Personnel Branch Staff in connection with the fixation of pay, 8 of 10 vetting the 6th CPC Scales, redeployment of staff etc and he was granted a cash award of Rs. 1000/-. According to the respondents, such awards are given routinely to supervisors and staff throughout the year. The selection committee had taken a decision that the award given during Railway Week Celebration at the level of Railway Board, GM, HOD & CWM and award for 'Person of the Month' only to be considered for awarding marks. The selection committee has the power devise its own method and it has to be followed informally. So, the award got by the applicant was not considered for giving marks. According to the respondents, it was not mentioned that employees should have obtained the graduation either under 10+2+3 or 11+2+3. It was only mentioned as "graduate serving Inspectors" with minimum three years of service when volunteers were called. The applicant had also obtained his Plus two by foundation course and degree from open university as Respondent No.3 and he cannot contend that respondent No.3 is not eligible to participate in the examination. After the decision in OA 270/2012 dated 22.11.2012, the respondents had decided to follow the criteria of 10+2+3 or 11+2+3 streams. There is no illegality or irregularity committed in the selection of panel as alleged in this case.
9 of 10
8. The counsel for the applicant would contend that if the applicant gets the one mark he is entitled to get for Question No.1, he would have been selected. It is also argued that the committee had deviated in its procedure for selection and it was illegal. But on the other hand, the counsel for the respondents would contend that the selection committee has powers to evolve its own procedures. The applicant has no right to challenge the selection after participating in the examination.
9. We had gone through the pleadings and various annexures produced by both sides. The applicant had got lesser marks than respondent No.3. He claims for selection if he gets one more mark for Question No.1, Paper Part B. There is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets in the rules and so there is no question of revaluating the answer sheet in Part B. A committee was constituted and they had evaluated the marks. The applicant has got 9 marks out of 10 marks. The applicant cannot claim full marks in a descriptive type of questions. The committee had taken a decision to give marks for "awards" in a consistent manner according to the decision of the committee. There is no allegation of malpractice in the selection process. The selection committee was given power to devise its own procedure in selection with only condition that it should be 10 of 10 applied uniformly to all candidates. We could not find any serious illegality or procedural violations committed in the selection process and we find no reason to interfere with the selection process or to consider revaluation and giving marks. The applicant cannot challenge the selection process after participating in the selection.
10. So we find no merit in the OA and it is dismissed. No costs.
(T. JACOB) (P. MADHAVAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
Asvs 02.06.2020