Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram : Hon Ble Mrs. Shyama Dogra vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 9 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH. O.A.NO.210-PB-2011 Decided on: 09.09.2011 CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) AND HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). Vinay Kumar son of Shri Naresh Pandit, resident of Mathura Nath Ghosh Lane, behind of Burha Nath, Temple P.S.Kotwali Jogsar, District Bhagalpur (Bihar). . Applicant By: None. Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology, Department of Posts, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary (E), Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Chairperson, Railway Recruitment Board, Jammu-Sri Nagar, Railway Colony (West, Jammu. 4. The Chief Personnel Officer, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, Punjab. 5. The General Manager (P), Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, Punjab. 6. The Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway (E) Workshop, Jamalpur, Bihar. 7. The General Manager, Zonal Office, Eastern Railway, Fairly Palace, Kolkata. 8. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer-cum-Workshop Personnel Officer (W),Eastern Railway Workshop, Jamalpur, Bihar. 9. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway Workshop, Kolkata. Respondents By: Mr.Yogesh Putney, counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 5, 7 & 9. Mr. G.S.Sathi, counsel for Respondents No. 6 & 8. ORDER(oral)
HONBLE MS.SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) The brief facts, as projected by the applicant, are that the Railway Recruitment Board, Jammu-Srinagar, Jammu, carried out selection for the post of Section Engineer (Mech-CADCAM), in the scale of Rs.6500-10500, in pursuance of an advertisement published in the Employment Notice No. 1/2005 (J.E/S.E), and vide letter dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure A-1), the applicant was informed that his name has been recommended to Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala (Punjab), for appointment and he was to be offered appointment subject to the completion of all formalities like final checking of original documents, suitability in all other respects and subjects to availability of posts in his turn. The applicant entered into a lot of correspondence with the respondents but was not given appointment in RCF Kapurthala or any other Workshop. He has, thus, prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint him as SE/Mechanical-CADCAM or any other equivalent post or to appoint him on the said post in Eastern Railway Workshop, Jamalpur, as there is a provision for transfer of panel from one workshop to another and for which the applicant has also given his willingness and favourable recommendation by Eastern Railway Workshop, Jamalpur and to promote him with all the consequential benefits including seniority from 20.10.2005 i.e. date on which the panel was prepared.
2. The respondents have filed a reply. They submit that 5 supernumerary posts of Senior Section Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 were created by matching surrender of the direct recruitment posts of Section Engineer, with pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, and only 4 posts of Section Engineer against direct recruitment quota were available. Thus, the panel dated 20.10.2005 was operated on 16.11.2005 to the extent of 5 candidates, as the candidate appearing at Merit order No. 4 did not turn up. Since the name of the applicant was at Sr. No. 7 in the panel, he was not given appointment and the applicant was informed about this vide letter dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure R-7). Action was initiated by the respondents for adjustment of surplus candidates in the panel in the Eastern Railway. The panel is valid for one year only which could be extended with the approval of the General Manager for further one year i.e. upto 19.10.2007. Since the currency of the panel extended by G.M, RCF had expired on 19.10.2007, the matter was referred to Railway Board for approval of the inter-Railway transfer of the panel from RCF, Kapurthala, to Eastern Railway Kolkata with extension of currency of the panel vide letter dated 4.7.2008 (Annexure R-12) and meanwhile, new results for selection for the same post, have also been published on 31.5.2010 and as such the earlier panel has expired. They have also taken the plea of limitation.
3. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
4. When the case came up for hearing on 8.9.2011, none appeared for the applicant. Even on the last date of hearing nobody put in an appearance on behalf of the applicant, therefore, we proceeded to decide the matter by proceeding under rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents and examined the material on the file.
5. The facts are not in dispute that the name of the applicant was kept on the panel for offering him appointment. However, due to restructuring of the cadre, the authorities decided to fill up only 4 posts of Section Engineer for which the panel dated 20.10.2005 was utilized upto 16.11.2005 and 5 candidates were offered appointment as per merit. The name of the applicant was at Sr. No. 7 in the panel. Thus, he could not be offered appointment. Efforts were also made to adjust the candidates who were surplus, including the applicant, and permission was also sought from the General Manager, for extension of the panel for one year. However, before such permission was received, the new panel became available on 31.5.2010. Thus, with the publication of the new panel, the earlier panel lost its relevance and could not be operated. It is a well settled law that authorities are at liberty to fill up or not fill up vacancies. Mere empanelment does not create a right for a candidate to seek appointment. For this, we place reliance on the decisions in the cases of Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC, 47; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 207 and S.S.Balu & Another V. State of Kerala & Others, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S), 388. In these cases, it has been clearly held that selected candidates do not have a legally enforceable right to be appointed to a post. Regarding validity of a panel, in State of U.P. & Others V. Harish Chandra & Others, (1996) 9 SCC 309, the Apex Court has held that a select panel has a life of only one year from the date of the preparation of the merit list and it expires thereafter. In this case, the panel has already expired and the efforts of respondents to get it extended it for one more year have failed to evoke any response and meanwhile a new panel has come into existence and as such the earlier panel cannot be operated now.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Original Application is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 08.09.2011
HC*
- 1 -
(O.A.NO.210-PB-2011)
Vinay Kumar Vs. UOI etc.