`CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7505 OF 2004 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Shive Kumar Tanti ------------Petitioner Versus Union of India & ors.---------Respondents ---- For the Petitioner:- Mr.Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate of Railway & Mahesh Prasad,Advocate ---- P R E S E N T The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr.Prasad The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailesh Kumar Sinha Prasad & Sinha,JJ:- This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 350 of 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 29.8.2003 passed in Review application No.9 of 1997. 2 Various other reliefs have been prayed but as the same will depend upon the reliefs referred to above, we are not incorporating the same. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the Railway Service Commission,Muzaffarpur now known as Railway Recruitment Board published Employment Notice No.9 of 1978 inviting applications for various posts including the post of Trains Clerk, Commercial Clerk(Coaching), Commercial Clerk(Goods), Assistant Station Master, Ticket Collector and Guard Grade(C). Application in terms of the advertisement was to be submitted in the prescribed form. Instructions were also issued to the candidates for filling up the application forms. It inter alia provides that when more than one post is included in one category e.g.Trains Clerk etc,. then candidates are not eligible to use one application. The candidates were further required to give his choice in the space 3 provided in the application,in case candidates offer their candidature for all the posts. According to the petitioner,he has not given any preference for any of the posts but according to the respondents, petitioner had given his first preference as Trains Clerk. In the light of the aforesaid Employment Notice, petitioner as also other candidates offered their candidature and they were subjected to written test and viva voce test. However, petitioner was not selected for appointment. However on the basis of the said Employment Notice, 968 candidates were appointed to various posts. Complaint was made that persons who have secured less marks have been appointed in preference to the persons who have secured higher marks. The matter was ultimately examined by the Railway Board and the Railway Board by its confidential letter dated 19.9.1988 took the following decisions:- i) The Railway Board agreed that a fresh panel should be formed for the candidates who secured more marks than those candidates 4 who had already been empanelled and given appointment. The number of such candidates already appointed was 968. ii) Urgent action should be taken to offer appointment to those candidates included in the fresh panel to be prepared according to the Railway Board’s instructions, started earlier. iii) These candidates should be absorbed in Dhanbad, Mugalsarai and Danapur Division of the Eastern Railway and Samastipur, Izatnagar, Sonepur and Lucknow Division of the North Eastern Railway. iv) To accommodates these candidates, vacancies for various categories of posts for which Employment notice no.9 of 1978 had been issued should be frozen. Future recruitment for those categories of posts from the open market should be stopped and candidates from the panel to be prepared now should be accommodated against those vacancies. In other words, vacancies against those categories mentioned in employment notice no.9 of 1978 should not be filled in by outsiders unless the panel is exhausted. No now indent for those posts should be placed on the Railway Recruitment Board and indent already placed should be cancelled. v) Even though some of the candidates were not graduates they should be considered for appointment because when the employment notice was issued in 1978, graduation was not the qualification and a matriculation certificate was sufficient. vi) The allocation of candidates to North Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway should be made on the same basis as the 968 candidates already appointed had been allocated.” 5 Petitioner and various other candidates who were denied appointment preferred original application before the Tribunal which led to registration of O.A. No.322 of 1989. The Tribunal by its order dated 10th of August 1990 gave the following direction:- “We accordingly direct that the present applicants should be considered for appointment to the various categories of posts enumerated in categories 65 to 70 of employment notice no.9 of 1978, in accordance with the Railway Board’s instructions dated 19.9.1988 (Annexure-8) of the application.” Petitioner was thereafter appointed as Trains Clerk. However his grievance is that persons securing less marks have been appointed as Assistant Station Masters and Guard but he has been appointed as Trains Clerk. He filed O.A. No.412 of 1992 before the Tribunal raising the aforesaid grievance. The Tribunal by order dated 1.11.1994 directed the Chairman of the Railway Board to ensure disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid 6 order, the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by order dated 11.9.1995. While rejecting the representation the Railway Board found that petitioner had given preference for the post of Trains Clerk. Petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal, which has given rise to the impugned orders. It is relevant here to state that by order dated 5.12.2005 the writ application was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 1797 of 2008 before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 4th of March,2008 set aside the order of this Court and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. That is how the matter has been listed before us. Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in terms of the advertisement candidates were not 7 required to indicate their preference of posts and the petitioner having secured higher marks than persons who have been appointed as Assistant Station Masters and Guards,he ought to have been appointed as such. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that preference was not to be indicated while offering the candidature is unfounded on fact. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. Employment notice required a candidate to fill up the application in prescribed form. Alongwith the Employment notice the prescribed form as also the general instructions for filling up the form have been given. It requires the candidates to give its preference. In fact petitioner had given the preference and his first preference was to the 8 post of Trains Clerk. He has been appointed as Trains Clerk. Therefore, in our opinion he cannot make legitimate grievance that he ought to have been appointed as Assistant Station Master or Guard. Mr. Singh then, submits that petitioner should rank senior to those Trains Clerk who have secured less marks and appointed earlier. In the absence of persons over whom the petitioner’s claim seniority, we are not inclined to go into this question. We do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court Dated the 24th of June,2008 A.Kumar/NAFR