Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Biplab Kanti Deb vs M/O Railways on 25 September, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00246/2018
Date of order: This, the 25th day of September, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. URMITA DATTA(SEN), JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUMEET JERATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
Sri Biplab Kanti Deb
S/o Late Mahendra Chandra Deb,
Vill: Rampur, P.O. Amtala, Dist: Hojai,
Assam, Pin - 782435
----Applicant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India,
Through General Manager,
N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati - 781011, Assam.
2. General Manager (P),
N.F. Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati - 781011, Assam.
3. Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Cell,
Station Colony, Panbazar,
Guwahati - 781001, Assam.
-----Respondents
For Applicant: Dr. G.J. Sharma
For Respondent(s): Sri H.K. Das, Rly. Adv.
O.A. No. 040/246/2018
2
ORDER(ORAL)
PER URMITA DATTA (SEN), MEMBER (J):
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):
"8.1 to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant in the Group D post under the Hearing Handicap category/unreserved category after affording opportunity to participate in additional tests, if any.
8.2 any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. As per the applicant, in pursuant to the Employment Notice No. 1 of 2010, he had applied for the post of Group - D under hearing handicapped quota and appeared in the written test. Thereafter, he was shortlisted among the PH(HH) candidates as a standby candidate as published in the Assam Tribune on 28.07.2012(Annexure-A/3). Subsequently, one final empanelment list with regard to UR candidates was published on 05.12.2014(Annexure-A/7). Thereafter, he made a representation dated 20.12.2016(Annexure-A/5) on the ground that though there was no standby for O.A. No. 040/246/2018 3 general candidates in the said list but 21 failed candidates called for document verification and were recruited in 2014. However, the six PH standby candidates did not get any recruitment till that date. In response to that, vide Order dated 09.06.2017(Annexure-A/6), the applicant was informed that the panel of PH candidates against Employment Notice No. 01/2010 had already been published and the appointment were given to the qualified candidates and thereafter, since the cut-off marks for the PH candidates were 42.84 and he had secured only 41.24 marks(Normalised), therefore, he was not finally empanelled. Being aggrieved with this, he has filed the instant O.A.
3. However, Sri H.K. Das, learned Railway Adv. appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently submitted that the applicant was put under standby list vide Publication dated 28.07.2012(Annexure-A/3) where 9 more HH candidates were empanelled in the main panel and subsequently, they were recruited and the entire O.A. No. 040/246/2018 4 recruitment process was concluded in 2014. Further, as per the respondents, the cut-off marks for empanelment of UR candidates in non-PH category were 64.46(42.97%) whereas, the marks secured by the applicant was 41.24(27.49%). Thus, the marks secured by the applicant were very much lower than the cut-off marks for empanelment of non-PH UR candidates. Besides, that the applicant was not eligible to be empanelled against the UR vacancy also as the recruitment procedure for non-PH candidates is different from that of PH candidates. As per the examination procedure, in case of non-PH category, a candidate has to first qualify the written test. Thereafter, the candidates shortlisted in the written test were subjected to the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) and those who had qualified for the PET were called for document verification and medical examination and thereafter, a panel is formed comprising of the successful candidates depending upon the notified vacancy for each community such as UR, SC, ST and OBC. However, in the case of PH candidates, there is no PET and the panel is O.A. No. 040/246/2018 5 prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the written test followed by document verification and medical examination. The applicant, who applied as a PH candidate and had undergone all the procedures of PH category has compared himself against the non-PH category which is not permissible under the extant rules. Further, the examination process was already over by 2014 whereas, the applicant had approached this Tribunal only in the year 2018 when the panel was already exhausted followed by joining of the successful candidates that cannot be challenged after a long time. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the instant O.A.
4. We have heard the parties and perused the records. It is noted that the applicant had applied against the 2010 Notification and his name was published against the HH category under standby list wherein cut-off marks were 27.31% and 9 candidates were shortlisted against the main list with cut-off marks of 28.56%. However, the O.A. No. 040/246/2018 6 said recruitment notice with regard to the PH candidates, especially, the HH candidates had already attained finality by exhausting the main list candidates' vis-à-vis the vacancies notified in the year 2010. However, the applicant had admittedly approached the authority for certain clarifications in the year 2016 and ultimately approached this Tribunal in 2018. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the respondents that after the panel has been exhausted long back that cannot be challenged or re-opened that too without any basis. Thus, we do not find any reasons to entertain the instant O.A. Accordingly, the instant O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs.
(DR SUMEET JERATH) (URMITA DATTA SEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/Sk/
O.A. No. 040/246/2018