Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs V Venugopal on 23 November, 2009
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS TI-IE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 20-391A' PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, »¢HIE1*é"J"USTtCE"' AND THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE v.é*.-SABHABTT1 WRIT PETITION No.323§1/12909 ['S'--cVA_'r'j 1 BETWEEN _ O 1. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL.jOFB1cERR,.jj. PERSONNEL BRANCH - 'V * " SOUTH WESTERN"-RAILWAY; BANGALORE} 5:530 02:3'; 2. THE UNION OEv1N.D£SA,'«.S_ . . REP. BY ITS eENE'RAL,MAN'A_GER, SOUTH 'WESTERN BA1LW.A'Y," HUBLI---589 020. ._ ' ' PETITIONERS (By SR1. BEVADAS, SR Apy. A /w SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI FOR / S.» NYAYABIIIT ADVO CATES). AN'I>___: ' A SHRI V; VENU.G"O4B:AL, S /'O. VEERAN, _ AGED ABOUT :52 YEARS, " 'EX:CASI.IAL LABOUR, SALEM DIVN, * ._"'~S.OU_THV WESTERN RAILWAY, " R,2AT;NO--. / 140, CHAKRAPATTI, ' ETHOPPZUR VIA DHARMABUR; DIST «M 636 352. RESPONDENT
---gw.
'N. Ix.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226 85 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL RECORDS IN OA.NO.226/O7, ON THE FILE OF .'E"H>E'-I_lCA"i7, BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION""OI=§-..._frH,E'~_ MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, BANGALOREACBENCIH DT. 6.5.09, IN OA.NO.226/O7, VIDE ANN~¢A,---»..._&,r 'D1sMIs__S OA.NO.226/07, FILED BY THE RESPONEIEINT. AND THIS WRIT PETITION COMING DP "EOE DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED TI-IE FOLLOWING:~» A . V ORDE3, " '*'"
(Delivered by.P.D.Dinal:{a1"an.,gA C.J.)" - This Writ petition isll'i'il_edr"b§}r--.l:the'eaifiixfisional Personnel Officer, South Western ar1dj--.arIot}ier respondent in Original AppliCatio.n...N:o,22rO7'~.2_007 on the file of the Centre} Administrative llieireinafter referred to as 'CAT'} Bangalore" Benoh; ..1_3laIr1galOre, being aggrieved by the Order I'c1a£¢e.,:"0§.D5.::oo9 wherein, the CAT has allowed the the prayer of the applicant by livdireoting tléie Iespondent No.1~--~the first appellant herein to the exercise of absorption of Ex.CL's against the ayailableil 79 Group 'D' posts in the manner explained in paragraph--16 of the order within a period of three rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for_t}:3.e4_:petitioneris "
and the learned counsel appearing for theprefspond.e'nt;*.. 'V, e
3. The challenge made inthi-s_ writpetition issirniiar to,"
the one raised and considered Petition No.29767/2009, wherein Conritg detailed order dated 18*' November 200§}*h__as izvrit petition. In the said is 0-bselrx/ed"asihereunder:
(410. .th=e:llrnaterial on record would clearly sh_ow_tliat4Vda'te:--_'of birth of the respondent»- applicant befo_rVethe' Tribunal is 25 / 12 / 1955 and pheltwias "initiallly"Wengaged as casual labour on V The material on record would * even as per the intimation sent the "petitioner herein, the name of the AA applicant was shown in the live register when the .ri:n'ti7.nation was sent on 22 / '7/2003 as per u"§Annexure 'A-3' annexed to the application. It is "clearly stated that the name of the applicant is available in the live/supplementary register and he has been already asked to attend for screening ._ on 30/ 12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railwaye.__u7_ Institute, Bangalore. Further contents...,_l4'of Annexure 'A-5' would clearly show that in lislt"-it of Casual Labourers eligible;...candidates*:'.';vare entered in the live register and at applicant has also been shown. Further, ptbielifact i that applicant had been for it absorption of casual;__laboure.rsl' hisnazine has been found in thelive '«regj_ister_'is:'no>t disputed by the applicant. lfloiévever, letters Annexures _'A--=1_"_-to 'A-3.' \_fifereVA'cvan.celled since the educatioizalfdualification had"b'een prescribed for absoitpti*on,. for the purpose of absorptionand. only in case of initial appointmént} ~. ' "
The material on record would clearly ' _show._that.._there is no merit in the contention of that the applicants were called for sc.reeni11g3fonly for the purpose of preparing fresh live 'register as the intimation would fairly show it la-s.._referred to above that the name of the llappjlicant had already been entered in the live xlregister and he had been called for absorption of casual labourers. The only ground upon which the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of the applicant for absorption is age limit. it clear from the Railway Board Master -I~ No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as follows_:.~.«.._fl=, V "At the time of screeningcf Casual" «. labour relaxation in age [s"}1ould._ 'be' automatic if it is establishe_d"--that t,h_e'» ' it K individual was within $7756 presciibeai"ag~,g..... limit and had been moire' or less "regularlyj working. In old caspe$,"~wi'2.ue_re theagef limit was not observed, relaxation of age should be considered §,s.y1iip'athetically. The cpos, mus anoi», "the. __'f.-Chief Engineers [Construction]A.are competent to grant t'he";relaxa._tion in age"-.~."* V.
12. _uf;;ctilt218.t"BRMS and the Chief En.gineers are competent to grant relaxation made' iidisputed by the petitioner. F'urther, to the fact that the case of applicant before' the Tribunal is for absorption ' tpartd not for" initial appointment. What is required _ to__pbe"consid:ered is as to whether the appointment of, ca_s'ual.i'.w'labour was within the prescribed age limitvwhen initially recruited as a casual labour and the fact that when the petitioner was initially bvenigaged as a casual labour, he was within the age limit was not disputed as the date of birth of the applicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is on 16/8/1979. The applicant has a1s1:§i'-, substantiated before the Tribunal that though name was found in the register he was not 15¢ engaged and persons who wereHjVunior;to' the list were engaged and ther';:efore,githe;gg after detail consideration of above"
material on record has held.V:vtl*:at the apiplic-atio_ri"'of the "applicant for abso_rptio»n_ is «--._:reje_oted erroneously and di.rectio'nsetoveomplete the exercise of absorption Labourers against the" available' in the manner in 16 as out above.
to the above said facts of the casehthe oirCu1:a1'.i:s'sued by the petitioner and Circ'u.lafrViNovi48 and also having regard to gtvlriei fact that material on record clearly show that V "applicant had already been included }iiv'elp'i*egister and his application has been rejected only on the ground of age and absorption _ has" been declined only on the ground of age, if e.wh'ich is clearly erroneous and contrary to the lecircular issued by the petitioner as referred to it above. The Tribunal has issued direction as impugned in this writ petition. That having regard to the above said material on record, we _' satisfied that the finding of the Tribu_rta1.i_&'VVisi__"I' justified and does not suffer from any illegality as to call for interferoricein the writ jurisdiction of this Cotirt 76' we hold that the writ petition is."devoid,»o'f2riierit'_T; "
and pass the following:-- i V. .2snas> The writ pe'tnien..i.s nts[nissesee,==
4. Hence, _fol1ow.ing; the ;tV2nt11'ni,;_-ajst:enetet¥ed by us in wnzt Petition No.2976"f_f,/2'0'i§9.: on 18-11-2009), as referred petition is also liable to be dismissed. AV&.;or'diri'g1}i,'eit" isgdismissed. No order as to costs. Sdfe Chief Esstice sdfi JUDGE Yes/No T _4Web-Host: Yes/No '"a_ Snb/