c.r' 6 ^^.' nw-ifi?l »8i1 I; t^ jl U "'• IN THE HIGH COURT OF J UDLCATURE ATL BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0./<9^/ OF 2006 PETITIONERS \^ \^^f^' Sanat'Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri R. R. Sharma, aged About 51_years, posted as AdhocJuSior Clerk, 0/0 C E E (Construction), South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Bhoj Ram Ratre, S/o Shri Kartik Ram Ratre, aged About 30 years, posted as Sr. Trackmman, Jamgaon, Section Engjneer Path Way South East Centrat Rly., Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Bhushan Lat Kanwar, S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Kanwar, aged 37 years, posted as Sr. Trackmman, Jamgaon, Section Englneer Path Way South East Central Rly., Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) \^4. ^te\ ^^.^ 'f'-n! ;^' yW?"; .--" ^'-"-.oM^^^. ,^\ '^^*"^^^/'^ ^<%''/' "'NWS^ yiy&fiS'yoy •;] W-^H%%y / Bhuwan Lal Kurry, S/o Shri Prabhu Lal Kurry, aged 32 years, posted as Sr. Trackmman, Jamgaon, Section Engineer Path Way South East Central Rly., Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Raj Kumar Mahadeva, S/o B. P. Mahadeva, aged 35 years, posted as Senior Trackmman, under 5. E. P- Way, South East Central Rly. Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) Chandrika Prasad Mahilange, S/o Shri S.R.Mahilange, aged About 35 years, posted as Sr. Trackmman, underP.W.I. South East Central Railway, Brajrajnagar (Chhattisgarh) Deepak Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Madan Prasad, aged 35 years, Sr. Trackmman, under P.W.I., S. E. C. Rly., Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) < K ^> 8. Dinesh Kumar, S/o Ramcharan aged about 45 years, posted as Gangman under P.W.I. South East Central Railway, Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) 3 @- /^. Gajanand Mahadeva, S/o S/o B. P. Mahadeva aged about 30 years, posted as Trollyman under A. D. E. N. South East Central Railway, Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) 10. Kumari Konica Ghosh, D/o Shri P. C. Ghosh, aged about 34 years, posted as Khalasi under Signal & Telecom Deptt. South East Central Railway, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ^s /11. Rajendra Prasad Sonkar, S/o Shankarlal Prasad, aged about 36 years, posted as Khalasi, UnderTR D, S.E.C.R. Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) 12. Ganesh, S/o Shri Shrion aged about 36 years, posted as Trackman under CWI South East Central Railway, Manendragarh (Chhattisgarh) 13, Rupesh Kumar Vishwakarma, S/o Kunjilal Vishwakarma, aged 38 years, posted as Senior Tackman, under SEPW South East Central Railway, Manendragrah (Chhattisgarh) Sudhir Kumar Vastrakar, S/o D. R. Vastrakar, aged 29 years, posted in the office of IOW, South East CentralRly., Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 15. Nutan Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Mallick Kumar Verma, aged about 32 years, posted as Sr. Trackman, under Section Engineer, Pathway, Jamgaon South East Central Raitway, Dist. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) .-^ ajSI / &•;.• ^^16. Suresh Kumar Pandey, S/o M. P.Pandey, aged about 36 years, working in Signal & Telecom Office, South East Centrat Railway, Bllaspur Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) / 17. Tapas Kumar Sarkar, S/o B. Sarkar, aged about 45 years, working as Senior Box Boy, Under Chief Crew Controller South East Central Railway, Bitaspur (Chhattisgarh) 18. P.Shankar Rao,S/o P. Ramalu aged about 36 years, posted as Senior ackman, under PWI South East Central Railway, Manendragrah (Chhatttsgarh) w >^^. '•^' 'petdtiooer So.S:?. -y f ^-1 t'. n -""'<.£'§§/'•f/f '"%ssy "^^^SSai:''' ( 19. Permanand Gond, S/o Shri Kunwar Singh,aged about 35 years, posted as Sr.Trackman, under Section Engineer P/way, Jamgaon, South East Central Railway, Dist. Raigarh (CG) 20. Vinay Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Sinha.aged 32 years,posted as Sr.Trackman, underSr. Section Engineer, P. W. I. Khongsara, South East Central Railway, Dlst.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Silaabar Siagh Bsj» S/b Shri. ^—'!31*S3 A >'sars» pftstad as S und&r C'i£"f Ha9lth SoutH Sssfc Cent.rsl a&iwala tcbha'.tisgarb) ,,^ir Sectfo „ - , Pathway, Jamgaon, S E C Rly Dist. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) "•fcA /13. Sukhchand Satyam, S/o Shri M. Satyam, aged 45 years, posted as Gangman, P. W. I. S E C Rly, Umaria, District Sahadol (Madhya Pradesh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1. Um'on of India through the General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] /2. Divisional Railway Manager South East Central Railway, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] '3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Rallway, Bllaspur [CG] ^4. Ch1ef Personnel Offlcer South East Central Railway, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] /5. Assistant General Manager New Railway Zone, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] /6. Chandrika Prasad Kushwaha S/o M. P. Kushwaha, aged About 33 years, working as Senior Trackman under the Section Engineer, SEC.Rly., Baikunthpur, District Surguja [Chhattisgarh] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE QF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS: (.\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITOINERS RESPONDENTS W.P^No, 188Lof20_06 Sanat Kumar Shanna & Others. VERSUS , Union oflndia & Others. WRFT PETmON LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA S: Hon'bte Shn Satish K. Aemhotn & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Sliri P.S.Koshy, Advocate forthe respoadents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed oa 10ttl day of December, 2009) Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Heard. 1. The present petition seeks to quash fhe order dated 27 October, 2005 (Anaesaire P/l) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'lhe Tribunal'), Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original Application No. 305/2005, under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution ofliidia. 2. The facte in nutshell are that the petitioners (applicants fherein) pursuant to fhe notificatioa dated 10 Februan', 2004 issued by the respondent authorities, made application for participation in the examination for selection and appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Typists, against the departmental quota for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. A list of 130 candidates was prepared, pursuant to fhe written exammations held on 13.6.2004 aad 27.6.2004. The petitioners found their places in the list of 130 candidates. However, tfie petitioners could not be promoted, thus, an appiication before the Tribuna! was fiied challenging the selection of other candidates and non-selection ofthe applicants, 32 in number oa fhe grouad that the respondent authorities have failed to promote the petitionere and 1 f-S?- some other persons, who were junior and incompetent, have been 3. It has been farther alleged that there was an ulterior motive on the part of the respondent authorities in not promoting some of tiie candidates. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, carefullv examined the selection proceedings and held as under: "We have carefully pemsed the original selection proceedmgs and in wliich we find that the total nuinbers ofpaper are 100 marks and out of which 5 marks was reserved for technical qualifieation, 5 marks reserved for acadeimc qualtfication, 5 marks resen^-ed for 'Award' and 85 marks reserved for written examination. We also fmdthat onlythose candidates, who are beioiiging to General categoiy got 60 marks or above 60 marks were passed and below 60 marks no body was passed atid the SC/SC casididates were granted relaxation for 10 .aumbers ia the passing marks. We farther find that tfae applicants have not find place ia the merit list, therefore, fhey were not declared as successful candidates in Amiexure-A-1. Hence, the contention of the respondents fhat the selection has been inade strictly iii aceordance witfa the mles and directions give in Rly Board's letter RBE No. 165/03 and only fhose candidate have bee finally selected who have obtained higher qualifying marks is fully correct" 4. We have heard ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. It appears that the allegations made by the petitioners are vague, unsupported by any documents and evidences. There is no specific instance wherein it can be held that the appointment was made on the basis of any other criteria except selection strictly on the basis of merit in accordance with the rules and regulations. The petitioners have not raised any other ground poiating out illegality or irregularity in the selection process as well as in appointment of ofher candidates. Thus, we are of the considered opinion Ihat fhe order impugned herein is unexceptionable and warrants no interference. _6._ Accordingly, the writ petitioa is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SafisAK.Agnihotri Judge _\. _\: Sdf- PrashantXurna'' SViishra Judge S'?r;-^Si'-?CTt"? ^'