Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Date Of Decision: 10.12.2012 vs Union Of India Through on 10 December, 2012
1 O.A. NO.815/2009 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. O.A.No. 815/2009 Date of decision: 10.12.2012 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. BASHEER, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI R.C. JOSHI, MEMBER (A) Shri Rajesh Dattatraya Nandurkar, Age 37 years, Working as Sr. Ticket Examiner, Amravati, Residing at Ganpati Nagar, Behind Hotel Lords, Amravati 444607 ... Applicant (Applicant by Shri S.V.Marne, Advocate) vs. 1. Union of India through The General Manager, Central Railway, CST.Mumbai 400 001. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusaval Division, Bhusaval Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents (Respondents by Shri V.D.Vadhavkar, Advocate) O R D E R (ORAL) Per: Justice A.K.Basheer, Member (J):
Applicant joined the Central Railway as Ticket Collector in 1997. He was promoted as Senior Ticket Collector in January 2002. The next promotion post available to the applicant is that of Head Ticket Collector/Head Travelling Ticket Examiner.
2. It is beyond controversy that applicant had participated in the selection procession held for the purpose of promotion to the 58 vacancies of Head Ticket Collector (50 General, 7 Scheduled Castes, 1 Scheduled Tribe) in March/April 2006. Applicant had passed the 2 O.A. NO.815/2009 written test and his name was placed at Sr. No.65 in the list prepared in this regard. Thereafter on July 13 2006, Annexure A.I panel of 55 selectees was published. Applicant's name was not included in the said list which has been impugned in this Original Application to the extent it excludes his name.
3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that respondent No.2 could not have carried forward one General vacancy on the ground that the said candidate was facing Disciplinary Proceeding at that time. According to the applicant he ought to have been included in the panel as the next eligible General candidate for promotion. As it turned out later, the said General category candidate, viz. Shri Patil, was found guilty in the Disciplinary Proceeding and a major penalty was imposed on him. But still, the applicant was denied promotion to the post of Head Ticket Collector/Head Travelling Ticket Examiner.
4. Respondents in their Written Statement have contended that 49 candidates under the General category who were found eligible for promotion in the selection process were rightly included in Annexure A.I Panel. Empanelment of one General and one Scheduled Caste candidate was not considered since major penalty charge sheets were pending against them. Annexure A.12 order issued by the Railway Board clearly stipulated that if a selected candidate is facing disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty, he should not be promoted on the basis of his selection and the reserved vacancy 3 O.A. NO.815/2009 "should be carried forward for inclusion in the number of vacancies for formation of next selection Panel/suitablity list". The case of the respondents is that the candidate who was found eligible for promotion against the 50th slot was not included in the panel since a major penalty chargesheet had been issued against him. Various other contentions have also been raised by the respondents in support of the selection process. According to the respondents, final list of selectees was published in conformity with the rules and regulations governing the field.
5. We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record and heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is pertinent to note that the applicant does not have a case that the respondents have completed the selectionprocess and finalised the panel of selectees in violation of Annexure A.12 order issued by the Railway Board. According to the applicant there was no necessity to carry forward the vacancy of the general candidate on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pendingagainst him. In the course of the arguments also learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the process of finalisation of the Panel. Admittedly the name of the applicant appeared at Sr. No.65 in Annexur A.9 list of candidates. This list which was obtained by the applicant under the Right to Information Act, also contained the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, personality test, record of service etc. 4 O.A. NO.815/2009 It may be true that the candidate just above the applicant in Annexure A.9 list had found a place in the panel of selectees. But this was admittedly on the basis of the reservation and other relevant factors. However that does not mean that the 50th slot under the general category ought to have gone to him for that sole reason.
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. It is beyond controversy that applicant had participated in a subsequent selection process held in the year 2007 to fill up 21 vacancies in the very same promotional post of Head Ticket Collector. But in the said selection process also applicant was not ultimately found fit for promotion, even though he had passed the written test. Significantly applicant had never challenged the correctness of the said selection panel published in July 2008. However, he has chosen to challenge the previous list which was published in 2006 (Annexure A.1) in this Original Application after a lapse of three years.
7. In our view this Original Application is liable to be dismissed not only since it is totally devoid of any merit, but also on the ground of delay and laches. As has been noticed already, the selection process was held in April 2006 and Annexure A.I panel of selectees was published in July 2006. The selected candidates were promoted by Annexure A.2 order issued on August 7, 2006. But the applicant has preferred this Original Application only in December 2009. It is true that the 5 O.A. NO.815/2009 applicant had filed another Original Application before this Tribunal (O.A.No.437/2009) challenging the Select List. But that was also only in 2009. That Original Application was disposed of with a direction to consider the grievance of the applicant. Pursuant to the above direction the respondents had passed Annexure A.3 order dated November 13, 2009 which is also now impugned by the applicant in this present case.
8. It is significant to note that the said representation was submitted by the applicant only on September 10, 2009 as is evident from Annexure A.3 itself. That is more than three years and three months after publication of the Panel of Selectees. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Original Application is hit by bar of limitation and that the applicant is guilty of laches.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Original Application is liable to be dismissed. We do so. However, there is no order as to costs.
(R.C.Joshi) (Justice A.K.Basheer) Member (A) Member (J) sj*