Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. All the 32563 candidates found eligible were called for interview during July 1996-February, 1997. Selection Committees for interviewing the candidates were formed as per the instructions contained in the Railway Board's letter dated 19.7.96. When the interview process was on, the validity of the composition of Committees as per Railway Board's letter dated 19.7.96 was challenged in O.A.No. 28/97 before this Tribunal on the ground that the Railway Board's letter dated 19.7.96 was contrary to para 179 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) dealing with recruitment of Group 'D' staff. The Tribunal struck down the Rail way Board's instruction dated 19.7.96. Thereafter the Railway Board issued fresh instruction on 29.4.98 for constituting the Committees with serving/retired Railway officials as per para 179 of the IREM. Based on the revised instructions from the Railway Board, all the candidates interviewed during 1996-97 had to be subjected to fresh interview. When the second round interview process was on, one Srinivasa Rao and 243 others filed O. A. No. 543/98 contending that the course completed Act Apprentices should be given preference to others in the selection and further the principle of seniority among the Apprentices must be followed after publication of such a seniority list. In the course of arguments a fresh plea was also raised that candidates should have been short listed for the interview. The O.A. was dismissed by an order dated 17.9.98.

19. Separate counter has been filed by the 5th respondent also. All the allegations have been denied. Respondent No. 4 did not give her any instructions for selection of any particular candidate. As a selection committee member, she acted according to her conscience in awarding marks based on the performance of candidates during the interviews.

20. The applicants have filed a rejoinder. Briefly stated it runs as follows:

Selection is contrary to the instructions contained in the IREM. Normally, candidates to be called for interview should be 3 to 5 times the number of vacancies. In this case as many as 32563 candidates were called for interview. Calling for applications should be restricted to only from amongst the local candidates. Preference should be given to local candidates and wards of employees retired or on the verge of retirement. Wards of employees who have completed ITI or Apprentice certificate and who belong to SC/ST community should be given preference. Candidates with the ITI qualification and with the Apprentice Certificate should be called from local employment exchange. As per the percentage of reservation for various groups, the selection should have been as under :

27. Select list has been challenged. The prayer is for setting aside the select list and directing the respondents to hold fair selection by short listing the candidates in a reasonable manner. Selection made is arbitrary, malafide and illegal. Applicants are persons who have undergone Apprenticeship in various trades in the Railway's itself. At the end of the training, they have also undergone an examination as per the Apprenticeship Act and have qualified in it. The respondents have selected candidates who are less qualified than the applicants. Selection is malafide due to extraordinarily large number of candidates called for interview as compared to the number of posts available. The ICF should have short listed the candidates to include only technically qualified persons. The Supreme Court has held in the case of U.P. State Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Bhishukhs Berozgar Sangh (supra) that it would be a sheer wate of human resources and highly irrational if the services of the trained personnel were not utilised. It defies logic as to why the respondents should resort to inviting candidates from outside wlien thousands of qualified apprentices trained in the Integral Coach Factory itself are awaiting appointment. Since the Supreme Court has said preference has to be given to apprentices, it is only proper that for recruitment to Group 'D' posts of Khalasis where no other factor like technical expertise, etc. is relevant for selection the respondents should confine the selection only to apprentices as done in the past or at least give definite preference to the Apprentices, by shortlisting the candidates for selection. 313 candidates who do not possess any technical qualifications have been selected. The applicants are better suited than those 313 candidates. Further persons who completed Apprenticeship after the applicant have also been selected. For example more number of candidates belonging to one station from where one of selection committee members came have been appointed. Reply has not been filed by the respondents.

5. Whether the marks set apart for the interview was on the high side?

6. Whether the spread of marks under the four different heads ensured uniformity in the selection or did it give room for wrong assessment and awarding of unmerited marks and consequently (sic) the whole selection process?

7. Whether the technically qualified/trade tested candidates and course completed Act Apprentices should have been given preference in the matter of selection?

8. Whether the non-joinder of candidates whose selection has been announced in the newspapers is fatal to the applications under consideration now?