Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. We have also seen that contention of the Official Respondents that the PSs in the RBSSS were granted exemption under Rule 8 (3) of the RBSS Rules was fallacious. Their statement that the PSs have fulfilled the condition prescribed in the said rule that they should have worked as Section Officer for one year or in the absence of such work, it was certified that they could not be posted as SOs due to contingency of work was also wrong. In fact, the Tribunal had gone by the note of the Secretary, Railway Board that there was nothing fictitious about the real problem of the administration and it was due to the administrative compulsion that it was not possible to appoint the PSs as SOs for one year. But the actual facts revealed in the reply to the information sought under the RTI Act were different. In fact, the official records show that there was no such exigencies of service by reason whereof the PSs in the RBSSS could not be posted as SOs in the RBSS and no exceptions had been granted to the PSs in their individual capacity. Therefore, PSs in the RBSSS could not have been included in the zone of consideration for Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary in the RBSS.

17. In the above background of the case, we are constrained to observe that the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 22.01.2010 was not based on the actual facts in the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the relevant issues. We, therefore, allow this OA and quash and set aside the circular No.ERB-1/2005/14/28 dated 09.07.2007 so far as it includes officers holding the post of PS in the RBSSS in the zone of consideration for appointment to Grade-I (Under Secretary/Deputy Director) in the RBSS. Consequently, appointment of the respondent No.4 to 22 or other similarly placed PSs in the RBSS as grade-I (US/DD) made pursuant to the aforesaid circular are also quashed and set aside.

20. The Tribunal has returned a finding in favour of the private respondents and we find that in so doing, the Tribunal has ignored a plethora documents and especially the office note dated 30.7.2007 which the petitioners obtained through an RTI query which shows that the office was aware that as a ritual it was being treated that Stenographers were not being posted as Section Officers and was being so recorded.

9. The further submission of the Review Applicants is that there is conflict of interest between two classes and groups, namely, SOs of RBSS and PSs of RBSSS and the Note dated 30.07.2007 clearly displays the bias and prejudice against the PS category. However, this Tribunal omitted to note the aforesaid vital contradiction as in sections note obtained under RTI filed along with OA, vested interest of one group stating therein contradictory/partial statements intended to cause confusion and doubts about the eligibility of the PSs to Grade-I of RBSS (US/DD). They have also submitted that the bias is writ large in the sections and JS (G)s note as submitted to the competent authority. On the other hand, the RBSS Rules provide for determining the eligibility of two classes, namely, Section Officers Grade as well as Grade A of RBSSS. The Review Applicants have also submitted that another vital fact escaped the attention of this Tribunal is that in the sections note which says that such statements were related to their (Group B of RBSSSs) permanent appointment as SO for one year which stood abolished after 1971 Rules and hence the proviso to Rule 8(3) became redundant. Thus, there is error of fact and law as the vague statement made at the level of the section is contrary to the correct interpretation and the spirit of the rules.

10. They have submitted that the interpretation of the Rule by this Tribunal was wrong and it was in violation of the fundamental rights. According to them, the interpretation of Rule 6, 9(3), 8(3) and proviso to Rule 8(3) of RBSS Rules as noted in the sections note is wrong and suggestive. But in view of the fact that the Stenographers quota for permanent appointment of Steno Grade B to Section Officers Grade stood abolished since coming into force of 1971 RBSS Rules. Therefore, Rule 9(3) has no application in the present case. Proviso to Rule 6 refers to posting to duty posts. Thus, the linkage of the condition of appointment for a minimum period of one year under proviso to Rule 6 with the permanent appointment to the post of SO against Stenographers quota under Rule 9(3) as referred to in sections note is nothing but an attempt to misguide this Tribunal.