Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1021-HR of 2009
(Reserved on 25.3.2011)
Chandigarh, this the Ist day of April, 2011
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.KHUSHI RAM, MEMBER(A)
Ram Prasad Singh son of Shri Chander Shekhar Prasad, age 47 years, working as Junior Engineer (Electric Power), Northern Railway, Saharanpur.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI JAGDEEP JASWAL
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through General manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, Headquarters Office, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
3. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI YOGESH PUTNEY
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
Having initially joined as a Casual Khalasi on 22.10.1988, the services of the applicant were regularized in the year 1989. He, thereafter, came to be promoted as Wireman with effect from 29.10.1992.
2. On 19.1.2005, Respondent No.3 herein, invited applications for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) qua 25% Intermediate quota for which the applicant was eligible. Having qualified the Written Test for the post aforementioned, held on 25.3.2006, the applicant herein was found suitable and placed on the provisional panel for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Gr.II. That provisional placement came about, vide Office Order dated 21.4.2006 (Annexure A-3).
3. Vide letter dated 7.6.2006, the applicant herein was called upon to join the relevant training at the Electric Training Centre, Ghaziabad. He reported there on 10.6.2006. On completion of the training, posting orders dated 2.1.2008 (Annexure A-4) were issued in favour of the applicant.
4. In the meantime, one Lukman Ali filed an O.A. (No.419-HR of 2006), challenging the promotion of the applicant to the post of Junior Engineer Gr.II. The plea raised was that the promotion ought to have been made only on the basis of merit and not on the basis of the common seniority for candidates belonging to different seniority units. That O.A. came to be allowed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure A-5) by an order, the concluding part whereof is extracted hereunder:-
11. In view of above discussion, OA is allowed qua applicant No.1 and official respondents are directed to appoint him as JE-II/ Elect. Grade 5000-8000 with effect from the date respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as JE-II/ Elect with all consequential benefits. Since there were only two posts meant for general category candidates, Respondent No.4 will have to go and make room for applicant No.1. Appointment of respondent No.3 will, however, remain intact. Further, since applicant No.2and respondent No.4 have qualified the selection and respondent No.4 also having undergone training for the post of JE-II/Elect, official respondents will consider possibility of adjusting them against vacant posts of JE-II/ Elect, if available. Needful be done within a period of to months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. OA is disposed of in the above terms, but with no order as to costs.
5. Thereafter, the respondents issued orders dated 13.7.2009 (Annexure A-6) for reversion of the applicant herein from the post of J.E. Gr.II. That reversion order was challenged by the applicant herein by filing MA No.535/2009 whereby he sought the implementation of order dated 10.12.2008. Initially, vide order dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure A-7), a learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal stayed the operation of that order. That interim order continued to be in force even thereafter. Ultimately, the reversion order of the applicant was cancelled by Respondent No.3, vide notice dated 29th July, 2009 (Annexure A-9).
6. The grievance of the applicant herein is that the impugned order (Annexure A-2, dated 31.8.2009) deserves outright invalidation in view of the fact that before the grant thereof, the Competent Authority did not explore the feasibility of his adjustment against an available vacant post. The further grievance, in the context, is that the respondents had invalidly declined to enlarge the panel (of selection) which (enlargement of panel) had been otherwise validated by a Division Bench of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 29th October, 2001 in O.A. No.425 of 1999, titled SHINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (Annexure A-17).
7. The applicant applied for invalidation of the impugned reversion order and also applied for the grant of a direction to the respondents to adjust him against the available vacancies of J.E. Gr.II.
8. The respondents resisted the averments aforementioned by raising an averment that the enlargement of the panel could not be ordered as any resort thereto (enlargement) would have been violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF BIHAR VS. SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES UNION, 1986 & OTHERS : 1994 Supp(2) SCC 12 and STATE OF BIHAR VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH : 1994(1) SCT 530 (SC). In the course of those judgments, the Apex Court held that consideration of a candidate against future vacancies, other than the notified vacancies, would infringe upon the right of the other eligible persons to be considered for appointment and that a resort to that would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
9. It was further averred that the Competent Authority, had in accordance with the direction given by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal , considered the adjustment of the applicant herein but no order beneficial to him could be granted for want of any vacant post of J.E. II.
10. The averment by the applicant that he is continuing to hold the fort as J.E. Gr.II, was denied by the respondents.
11. It was also pointed out that an order granted by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, declining interim relief to the applicant, had been affirmed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in judicial review, vide order dated 21.12.200 (in CWP No.19839 of 2009, titled RAMESH PRASAD SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA) (Annexure R-1).
12. We find from the record that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had invalidated the selection of the applicant herein to the post of J.E. and that it directed that the promotion aforesaid be given to Lukman Ali. The Bench had further stated was that official respondents will consider possibility of adjusting them against vacant posts of JE-II/Elect, if available. In the preceding part of that Para, the Bench had noticed that the applicant herein and another had qualified the selection and that the applicant had also undergone training for the training course. It was in the light of the aforesaid two facts that the direction aforementioned came to be granted.
13. We do not find any force in the plea on behalf of the applicant that the Competent Authority was, in compliance with the direction aforementioned, ordained to compulsively enlarge the original panel. There was, we are of the considered opinion, no direction for enlargement of the panel. The only direction was to consider the possibility of adjusting the applicant herein against vacant post of J.E. II/ Elect, if available. The direction was loud and clear. It did not, at all, require the Competent Authority to consider enlargement of the panel which (enlargement) would have been, even otherwise, violative of the law laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF BIHAR VS. SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES UNION, 1986 & OTHERS and STATE OF BIHAR VS. MADAN MOHAN SINGH (supra)
14. The plea on behalf of the applicant that enlargement of the panel would have been in accord with the law laid down by a Division Bench of the Principal Bench of CAT in SHINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (supra), is also misconceived. A perusal of that judgment would indicate that the Bench had categorically noticed the three eventualities under which the enlargement of the panels could be considered. For facility of reference, we would like to extract hereunder the three eventualities indicated by the Bench in terms of the instructions issued by the Railway authorities in October 1984:-
1. Incorrect assessment of vacancies.
2. Increase in vacancies during the process of selection.
3. Administrative errors due to seniority disputes which are decided subsequently making staff eligible for selections.
15. The present case does not fall under any of the items aforementioned. It is not a case where the number of vacancies had been incorrectly assessed. It is also not a case where there had been any increase in the number of vacancies during the process of selection. The present is also not a case where there had been an administrative error due to seniority disputes which are decided subsequently making staff eligible for selections.
16. The present case concerns a promotion, which had been granted to the applicant herein only on the basis of seniority. The Bench had invalidated it and had held that The select panel was required to be prepared without awarding any marks for seniority. In that view of things, the three contingencies envisaged by the instructions justifying the enlargement of the panel, do not arise in this case.
17. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find the O.A. to be denuded of merit. It shall stand dismissed.
18. The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (KHUSHIRAM) MEMBER(A) Dated: April 1, 2011 `bss 1 (OA No.1021-HR of 2009)