IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21692 of 2008 Between: 1 P.Ranga Rao, S/o. Venkatiah, O/o. SS/Dornakal, Warangal District. 2 Tajmohammad, S/o. rajmohammad, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 3 K.Sangamiah, S/o. Anjaneyulu, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 4 P.M.Samsunder, S/o. Malelsh, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 5 Osman Shereff S/o. tajuddinshereff, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 6 E.Paul Simon, S/o. J.D.Simon, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 7 Md.Jalaluddin, S/o. Md.Shoukat Ali, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 8 S.Yadagiri, S/o. Mallaiah, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 9 Ch.Kondal Rao, S/o. Narasimha Rao, O/o. SS/Dornakal, Warangal District. 10 M.V.L.Narayana, S/o. Nancharaiah, O/o. SS/Dornakal, Warangal District. 11 G.R.C.Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 12 N.V.Nagaraj, S/o. Veeraiah, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. 13 M.Ramesh, S/o. MB Chari, O/o. SS/Sanathnagar, Hyderabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Principal Secretary to M/o. Railway, (Chairman Rly.Bd), Rail Bhavan, Government of India, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. 4 The Sr.Divisional Operating Manager, S.C.Railway, Secunderabad. 5 S.Gautham, S/o. Vittal O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 6 B.Venkatyeshwarlu, S/o. Muthaiah, O/o. SS/Dornakal Jn, Warangal District. 7 M.S.Adrushta Kumar, S/o. Raja Rao, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 8 S.Raja Mohan, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 9 S.Gautham, S/o. Vittal O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 10 S.Sarangapani, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 11 S.Narsinga Rao, O/o. SS/Kazipet, Warangal District. 12 P.Gopala Krishna, O/o. SS/Dornakal, Warangal District. 13 Syed Asgar Ali, S/o. Turab Ali, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 14 S.Rajendra, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 15 Md. Yousuf Ali, S/o. Md.Ali, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 16 G.Ravi S/o. Venkataswamy, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 17 J.Sreenivas Rao, S/o. Rajaiah, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 18 B.Ayliahy, S/o. Sivalingam, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 19 R.Satyanarayana, S/o. Kanakaiah, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 20 R.Venkata Ramana, S/o. Iyliaha, O/o. SS/SC, Secunderabad. 21 N.R. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Ramaswamy, O/o. SS/SC Secunderabad. 22 K.Shankar S/o. Rajanna, O/o. SS/SC Secunderabad. 23 V.Hari Babu, S/o. Samuel, O/o. SS/SC Secunderabad. (recently transferred to SS/Vijayawada, krishna District) 24 V.N.Narender, S/o. Narsaiah, O/o. SS/SC Secunderabad. 25 K.Padma Rao, S/o. Ankush, O/o. SS/SC Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.323/2008 dated 24-06-2008 and quash the same along with the (1) impugned order No.CP/608.PII/OPTG/Pass Gd/SEL/SC dated 27-05-2008 of the panel and as well as (2) posting orders No.Cp/678/PII/Optg/Pass/Gd/SC dated 06-06-2008 for the post of Passenger Guards published by the 3rd respondents by declaring as illegal, arbitrary, non-observation of rules in force and the law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.SANYASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.S.VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21692 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 24-06-2008 passed in O.A.No.323 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, along with order No.CP/608/PII/Optg/Pass Gd/SEL/SC, dated 27-05-2008 and posting order No.CP/678/PII/Optg/Pass Gd/SC, dated 06-06-2008. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition may be stated thus: The petitioners ﬁled the above O.A. seeking direction to the third respondent to consider their representations dated 06-02-2007, in terms of Railway Board orders dated 06-09-2005 and 23-02-2007 in regard to selection to the post of Passenger Guard from SR Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs.5000 – 8000, on the basis of viva voce only. The main case of petitioners is that the third respondent issued a notiﬁcation dated 30-11-2006 calling SR Goods Guards to appear for written test to ﬁll 52 vacancies of Passenger Guards in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 (RSRP), and that the promotion to the posts of Passenger Guards and Motorman will be done on the basis of viva voce only, after passing the prescribed mandatory promotional courses. While so, the third respondent issued a second notiﬁcation informing 118 SR Goods Guards to take a written test, which was conducted and resulted were declared vide letter dated 03-10-2007. It is averred that 52 candidates have been declared as passed and a panel of 42 candidates was prepared vide letter dated 27-05-2008 and that in the seniority list of SR Goods Guards, the names of applicants before the Tribunal were shown at S.Nos.6, 14, 25, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45, 50, 52, 55, 56, 58, 65 and 66. The grievance of the petitioners is that 42 candidates have been selected as Passenger Guards on the basis of written examination. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and relying upon its decision in O.A.No.254 of 2007 vide order dated 24-10- 2007, which was conﬁrmed by this Court in W.P.No.26017 of 2007, held that notiﬁcation was issued on 30-11-2006, written examination was conducted and selection made and therefore, upheld the selection and further observed that the revised procedure takes eﬀect from 23-02-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners – applicants preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for respondents, and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in respect of Hyderabad Division, the procedure of conducting written examination for promotion to the post of Passenger Guard was dispensed with eﬀect from 23-02-2007 and therefore the Railways ought not to have conducted the written examination followed by viva voce. He also contended that the petitioners have put in substantial period of service and the procedure is to conduct viva voce and not the written test. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side. Admittedly, the notiﬁcation was issued on 30-11- 2006 which stipulated written test for selection to the post of Passenger Guard and selections were made pursuant to the written test followed by viva voce. It is to be noted that the Tribunal relied upon its order dated 24-10-2007 in O.A.No.254 of 2007, which was conﬁrmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.26017 of 2007 vide order dated 17-01-2008. It is seen that the subject-matter of the said O.A. relates to similar notification dated 30-11-2006 and this Court observed that the procedure, which was in force as on the date of issuance of the said notiﬁcation, has to be followed, which was rightly done. 6. It is borne on record that writ petitioners No.2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 herein, are applicants in O.A.No.254 of 2007 and petitioners in W.P.No.26017 of 2007. Thus, the order upon which the Tribunal placed reliance, had attained ﬁnality and the petitioners cannot seek direction to promote them to the post of Passenger Guards only on the basis of viva voce. In fact, the Tribunal in the impugned order observed that that the procedure had been revised with eﬀect from 23-02-2007 and as per the new procedure, selection for promotion from the post of Goods Guard to Passenger Guard and Motorman may be done through viva voce after passing mandatory promotional courses. The Tribunal further observed that the claim of the petitioners – applicants for selection to the post of Passenger Guard may be considered on the basis of seniority as and when vacancies are notiﬁed and as per revised procedure stipulated in Railway Board Circular dated 23-2-2007 in respect of vacancies arising from that date onwards. These observations of the Tribunal would protect the interest of the petitioners. 6. Having regard to the new procedure in vogue and the circumstances of the case, the petitioners shall make a representation to the respondent concerned. On ﬁling such representation, the respondent authority shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible, and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date the petitioners choose to make such representation. 7. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 30-09-2008 bsc