Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member)

2. The OA is filed in regard to non selection of the applicants as Junior Clerk cum Typist after completing the documents verification process.

3. Respondents issued notification dated 27.2.2010 for filling up the post of Junior Clerk cum Typist (for short "JCT") and the applicants who belong to SC community applied for the said post. A corrigendum for the notification was published in the newspaper dated 1.9.2013 increasing the vacancies from 33 to 41 without indicating the break-up of vacancies. The applicants, after clearing the written exam held in two stages, were called for the type test on 27.7.2014 and on conclusion of the test, the Chairman of the RRB, Secunderabad, announced that 26 candidates were selected including the applicants. However, applicants were informed vide letter dated 09.12.2014, 15 candidates were selected and 4 candidates were kept in the waiting list and that all the 36 vacancies of SCR are meant for Persons with Disability (for short "PWD") and the one vacancy of East Coast Railway (ECOR) is for SC quota. Aggrieved, OA No.9 of 2015 was filed, but withdrawn for lack of adequate pleadings. In the meanwhile, respondents released the list of 14 selected candidates for SCR and 1 for ECOR on 4.2.2015 wherein PWD candidates, who failed in Type Test were selected and some others' selection was subject to passing the Type Test later. Aggrieved over non selection, the OA is filed.

5. Respondents per contra state that a central notification 4/2010 was issued for selection to the post of JCT and the respondents have the power to increase/decrease the vacancies as per Railway Board letter dated 4.12.2001 and the change of vacancies in the case on hand was approved by the Railway Board on 23.1.2014 which was published on 31.1.2014 in the news papers (Annexure R-3). All the 36 vacancies of SCR were identified for PWD candidates of any community and that there was an inadvertent error in calculating the number of candidates to be called for type test, by not relating the same to the change in vacancies announced on 31.1.2014. Provision 13.07 of the notification cover such inadvertent error. The change OA/256/2015 in vacancies is permitted as per the notification and the decision of the RRB is final. Applicants cannot demand selection on the basis of being qualified in the type test. The applicants could not be selected due to shortage of vacancies and a mistake occurred in calling for the 2nd stage of the exam. Respondents express regrets for the mistake.

Applicant filed a rejoinder wherein it is stated that the number of vacancies shown in para 3 of the reply statement is different from the number of vacancies notified in 4/2010, since the number of SC vacancies have not undergone any change even by the corrigendum when the number of vacancies has been increased from 33 to 41. Allocating all the vacancies to PWD candidates is not a condition specified in the notification. The Annexures I & II are not applicable to the selection as per notification 04/2010. Declaring the mistake as inadvertent is not tenable since it is a self exclusion clause. The annexure R-3 & notification dt.31.1.2014 were not communicated to the applicants. Ministry of Railways has not issued the corrigendum but it was issued by R-6 who is not competent to do so. Reply statement does not bear any merit list and the selection is shrouded with mystery.

OA/256/2015 In the instant case respondents have issued the corrigendum on 31.1.2014 with the approval of the Railway Board dt. 23.1.2014, before the selection process was complete by increasing the vacancies to 41. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that the Railway Board approval was not taken in causing the change in vacancies is incorrect. When the respondents have the power to withdraw even after selection, it goes without saying that the changes in the notification in respect of the number of vacancies as per the terms and conditions of the notification can be done.