Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The respondents filed the reply stating that the respondents issued notification on 24.12.2004 to fill up 24 vacancies of Station Master Gr-I out of which UR-14, SC-8 and ST-2. As the applicant was not in the zone of consideration he along with five others filed OA 39/2006 disputing the seniority position assigned to them in the Station Master Gr-II on joining the division after training as Traffic Apprentices. In the said OA interim orders were granted allowing the applicants in the said OA to appear for the said examination but not to publish their results. After the examination, by memorandum dated 15.06.2006 a panel of 9 employees was published keeping 6 UR vacancies unfilled pending the decision of OA.39/2006 and one more till the finalisation of the major penalty charge sheet issued to the another employee. Subsequently by office order dated 02.08.2006 the empanelled employees were promoted and posted to the stations indicated against their names. In the said proceedings 4th respondent is at Sl.No.2. Thereafter OA.39/2006 was allowed directing to place the applicant in the above OA above the private respondents No.3 to 27 in the seniority list dated 12/14.12.2004 and to give promotion to the next higher grade accordingly. By virtue of said order the seniority list of Station Masters Gr-II was amended interpolating the names of the applicant in the said OA above the private respondents by proceedings dated 16.10.2007 and by memorandum dated 04.03.2008. All the applicants in the said OA were empanelled based on the revised seniority and the name of the applicant is at Sl.No.14 in the said memorandum dated 04.03.2008. However, the said panel was once again undergone change in view of the assignment of seniority of one Sindhu Prasad and as such by memorandum dated 07.07.2008 the said Sindhu Prasad was included in the unreserved vacancy and the applicant being the last official in the unreserved category his name was dropped. The respondents admitted that the 4th respondent did not join in the promotional post and he left the division on mutual transfer in the lower grade itself on request. But the contention of the respondents is that as the 4th respondent was empanelled on 15.06.2006 by the competent authority as per his suitability as on that date, his subsequent non joining has no consequence as the said vacancy has to be released to subsequent selection and hence the applicant could not be accommodated in the panel and as such the action of the authorities is inconformity with the rules. The respondents relied on sub-para (1) of para 219 of IREM which reads as follows :