Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The respondents have filed a detailed reply statement contending that the Tribunal in its order dt. 3.5.07 in OA 530 of 2006 directed to promote those eligible candidates who had successfully completed the selection process including the aptitude test. It is further clarified that the Railway Board's circular dt. 22.8.03, on which the applicants have placed reliance, is not applicable. It is further stated that a candidate who is declared failed in the aptitude test should not be considered for promotion keeping the safety aspect in view. Only successful candidates in the aptitude test are to be considered for promotion as per Railway Board's latest guidelines about aptitude test. The old guidelines dated 22.8.03 is not applicable in this case after the issue of revised guidelines of the Railway Board dt.29.3.05 (annexure-R1).

8. In view of the fact, we find that the OA has substantial merit and deserves to be allowed. As such, the OA is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.12.2005 and 19.1.2006 stands quashed.

The respondent authorities are directed to publish the result within the period of one month and to promote those eligible candidates who have successfully completed the selection process including the aptitude test held on 15th and 16th July, 2005. The persons who were deputed for tests they shall have no preference over the others who are declared successful.

Mr. K. K. Moitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 9 however, has submitted that since the selection process started on the basis of recruitment procedure 2003 as prevalent when the recruitment notification was issued in January, 2005 and written examination following the said procedure was completed, the new rule of 2005 as introduced thereafter modifying the mode of aptitude test could not be given effect to wherein the system of multiple cut off marks in different sub tests of aptitude tests was prescribed. It is contended that recruitment procedure is required to be completed following the relevant rule under which it was proceeded with, which in the instant case, Rule, 2003. In support of such contention reliance has been placed to the judgement passed in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11; 2009 (5) Supreme 421; Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2932; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 224 and Sukhdarshan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR (1990) SC 405. It is further contended that the stand as taken by the Union of India and Railway administration in the second original application O.A. No.647 of 2007, the order of which is the subject matter of the present writ application that the Railway administration followed the Recruitment Procedure of 2005 was contrary to the submission made earlier by the railway administration in original application No.530 of 2006 wherein in the affidavit-in-reply it was contended that recruitment procedure of 2003 was followed to complete the selection process but in the meantime as recruitment procedure of 2005 came into effect, the authority canceled the selection process, so the writ petitioners cannot take that point further applying the principle of res judicata.

So far as point number four is concerned, it is settled legal proposition of law that recruitment procedure as prevalent on the date of starting point of selection process could be considered as the recruitment procedure which to be followed to complete the selection process. Reliance is placed to the judgements as referred to by Mr. Moitra, Senior Advocate and also the judgements passed in the cases Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 852, A. A. Calton v. The Director of Education & Anr. reported in AIR 1983 SC 1143, Sukhdarshan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1990 SC 405, Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors. vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors. reported in (1997) 10 SCC 264 paras 11 and 12. However, this Court is not unmindful of the fact that amended rule could be considered not in respect of the subjective consideration of the merits of the persons concerned but on the procedural steps namely filling up of the actual posts and other co-related grounds as it appears from the judgement passed in the case S. Prakash & Anr. Vs. K. M. Kurian & Ors. reported in (1999) 5 SCC