Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) SC

(b) ST

(c) OBC

(d) Ex-servicemen

(e) Physically handicapped

(f) Unreserved candidates.

Total However, the actual recruitment is different. No candidates have been selected from the wards of ICF employees. The selection of 118 ST candidates as against 9 to be selected is bad in law. The idea of selection of local candidates has been given a go bye. It is evident from the distribution of the selected candidates. As regards OBC only 248 should have been selected. But the department has selected 387 candidates. As regards PH candidates 28 should have been selected. The department has selected only 18. Selection has been done at the whims and fancies of respondent No. 4. Respondent 4 has not given any importance to the selection of local candidates. He has resorted to selection of 654 candidates from other states and used the selection committee to his advantage. On the first two days when the respondent No. 4 played a vital role, 78 candidates were selected out of 150 interviewed. The applicant association is entitled to file the application. It is immaterial that the applicant association is not a recognised one. As per the instructions of the Railway administration, all the factions in the SC/ST Association have to be recognised till the elections are complete and new office bearers assume charge. The applicant association is a registered association and has aright to file the applications. The respondents are making inconsistent statements. The respondent No. 5 is awaiting confirmation as Assistant Personnel Officer and she was selected as a Committee member to further the interest of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 even saw to it that vigilance officer Satyanarayanan proceeded on leave and thereafter on voluntary retirement. The respondent No. 4 played a vital role in the matter of selection. This is admitted by the respondents that all the officers associated with the selection committees were given a brief in the meeting room on 20.6.98 and the norms to be followed in the selection. The allocation of marks gave room for arbitrary awarding of marks. It is the policy of the ICF that only one ward of serving Railway employee and on the verge of retirement and that of the retired employee should be given employment. More than one ward cannot be given employment. Selection of a large number of candidates in the first two days has to be properly explained.

28. Application runs on the same lines as in O.A.No. 294/99. Separate replies have been filed by the official respondents and 2 private respondents. Allegations have been denied. Of the 917 selected, 604 possessed technical qualifications. Out of these 604 candidates 176 were apprentices trained in the ICF. Khalasi post does not require in fact any technical qualifications as Act Apprenticeship.

29. We have heard the learned counsel for all these applicants and also the respondents. Mr. Peter Francis the learned counsel for the applicant in O.A.No. 93/99 argued that the whole selection process is vitiated for more reasons than one. He emphasised that employment notification itself was not in accordance with paragraph 179 of IREM, the local areas/regional basis with reference to the recruitment unit was not adhered to, very large number of candidates were called for interview contrary to the maximum number of 3 to 5 times the vacancies, selection was not in accordance with the quota of reservation for each category, the respondents erred in selecting Graduates for appointment, the spread of marks for the interview led to arbitrary marking system and also favouritism and the 4th and 5th respondents manipulated the selection.

When the selections were questioned before the Ernakulam Bench of C.A.T., it held relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417, that allocation of 30 marks for interview was totally unreasonable and arbitrary. The Supreme Court held on appeal that the Tribunal went wrong in applying the ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case.

55. In the case of N. Abubacker and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (1994) 28 ATC 821, the Ernakulam Bench of the C.A.T. had before it the question whether weightage for interview was excessive and arbitrary. In that case allocation of 70% of the marks was for viva voce test while remaining 30% was for record of Service and seniority. While dealing with the question the Tribunal referred to several cases of the Supreme Court on this question. It is useful and convenient to extract the summary from the order in that case :

In this background the Tribunal examined whether allocation of 70% marks for the viva voce is arbitrary. The Tribunal held in paragraph 8 of its order as follows:

"In this background we have examined whether allocation of 70% of marks for the viva voce is arbitrary, we think it is. 15% of the total marks is allocated for ascertaining professional competency on the basis of records of service. At the same time, 70% of the total marks are allocated for assessing professional ability, leadership, address, academic qualifications etc. There is no precise allocation among these various elements. There could be instances of a person getting outstanding entries in his service records. The most he may get in the assessment is 15% under this head. He may perhaps get low marks in the interview for the same. At once, a candidate who may get 5% or even less for professional ability on the basis of records may get 40% of the marks under the head professional ability in the viva voce that would be an instance where the subjective element overrides the objective element in assessment. We consider that the method adopted is unreasonable and arbitrary."