THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.10015 OF 2009 Dt.25.9.2009 Between: Y.Revathi Narayana Rao .. Petitioner And Union of India rep. By its Secretary (Estt), M/O. Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi and others .. Respondents W.P.NO.10025 OF 2009 Dt.25.9.2009 Between: T.Satyanarayana and others .. Petitioners And The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NOs.10015 & 10025 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) These two writ petitions are filed by the similarly situated Section Engineers of the South Central Railway against the interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.Nos.199 and 353 of 2009, 28.4.2009, in refusing to grant interim order of suspension reverting the petitioners herein from the post of Section Engineer to that of Junior Engineer, Grade-I. Admittedly, the said O.As are pending and while issuing notice to the respondents, the Tribunal refused to grant interim order on the ground that any grant of interim order amounts to directing the respondent- authorities to promote the applicants-petitioners again cancelling the reversion order which is the very subject matter of the main O.As. The facts in both the O.As are similar and for the sake of convenience it is suffice to refer the facts in W.P.No.10015 of 2009. The petitioner herein after joining in the Railway service has been promoted to the post of Head Draughtsman (now called as Junior Engineer Grade-I). For the further promotion to the selection post of Section Engineer, written examination was conducted on 13.3.2005. Pursuant to the written examination, petitioner was empanelled for the post of Section Engineer, vide proceedings dated 31.5.2005 and consequential promotion order dated 13.6.2005 was issued followed by a local order. Subsequently, the panel comprising 26 names was cancelled and reversion orders dated 23.3.2007 were issued in respect of 20 employees who were already promoted. Aggrieved by the said reversion orders, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons filed O.A.No.229 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order 19.12.2007 directed the respondent-authorities to cancel the candidature of only those candidates who figured in the investigation as having been benefited by the malpractice mentioned in the investigation report. Pursuant to the said orders of the Tribunal, 14 names out of the list of 26 candidates empanelled were deleted from the panel and out of whom 12 candidates, who were already promoted, were reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the same, they have again approached the Tribunal and initially the Tribunal granted an order of status quo, but ultimately dismissed the same with a direction to revert those candidates who have been benefited because of the malpractices. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner and others filed W.P.Nos.11269, 11270 and 11493 of 2008 on the file of this Court and this Court passed interim orders on 28.5.2008 directing the respondent-authorities to issue notice to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said interim orders of this Court dated 28.5.2008, a show cause notice dated 29.8.2008 was issued calling upon the petitioners as to why their names should not be deleted from the said panel of Section Engineer and to revert back to the post of Junior Engineer and the petitioners are required to submit explanation within 15 days. The petitioner filed detailed explanation and the reversion order dated 2.3.2009 was issued reverting the petitioner from the post of Section Engineer to that of Junior Engineer on the ground that as per the report of the Vigilance Department irregularities committed by the evaluator resulting in some candidates getting the qualifying marks instead of lesser marks which would otherwise disqualify for empanelment. The further details of the findings of the Vigilance Department are as follows: “(i) Evaluated and awarded marks for the extra 6 cases questions answered and taken the best out of them for tabulation. (ii) Reviewed his own evaluation and raised 1 case marks by adding as +1, +2 etc., without striking off the marks originally awarded and also not attested having added the marks. (iii) Awarded marks for wrong answers. 60 cases. (iv) Awarded marks for over-written and re- written answers 22 cases” It is stated that the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the said irregularities committed in the evaluation and therefore the selection of the petitioners is liable to be cancelled reverting them to the post of Junior Engineer. It is further stated as there is no any allegation of misconduct or manipulation on the part of the petitioners, but because of the gross irregularities in the evaluation of the answer sheets resulting in grant of excessive marks to some of the candidates, ultimately leading to undue benefit to the petitioners and some of the employees. It is further stated that the present reversion has not been ordered consequent to any proved malpractice on the part of the petitioner, but on the finding that the selection was fraught with serious irregularities leading to illegal promotions. Secondly, there is no stigma attached to the petitioner since no mala fides have been alleged and the administration has got every right to correct an error crept in selection/promotion and the same was sought to be rectified. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the report of the Vigilance Department was also not submitted and said allegations are incorrect or untrue. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contentions as admittedly the O.As are pending before the Tribunal questioning the legality and validity of the said reversion orders. As the petitioners were already reverted, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to refuse the grant of interim order of suspension, as the relief in the main O.A as well as the interim order is one and the same. If the petitioners ultimately succeed, no prejudice will be caused to them, as they will get back all the benefits during the interregnum period from the date of reversion to the date of getting the relief, if any. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra[1] wherein it was held that the grant of interim relief would tantamount to granting final relief and withholding of interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself, availability of very strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of applicant may persuade Court to grant interim relief. The perusal of the said order of the Supreme Court goes to show that their Lordships were considering the principles enunciated in Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, we are of the opinion that in exceptional cases it is always open for the Tribunal or Court to grant interim relief where denial thereof would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself, provided, the petitioner establishes the availability of very strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the applicant. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways appearing for the respondents relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Manjula v. Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Services.I) Department, Hyderabad[2] wherein it was held as paras 33 and 34 held as hereunder: “In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. Grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal. This Court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the Tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice. It would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of the main proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course. The Tribunal in the instant case having heard the matters at the admission stage in exercise of its discretion thought it fit to admit the original applications filed by the petitioners and accordingly directed notices requiring the respondents to appear in the matter. The Tribunal in its discretion thought it fit not to stall and interdict further promotions of eligible persons to the posts of Deputy Collectors. The order, in our considered opinion, had not resulted in any irreversible situation. The Tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties to the proceedings”. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the impugned order of the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, had not resulted in any irretrievable situation and the Tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties to the proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions against the refusal to grant any interim order by the Tribunal when the O.As pending. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in refusing to grant interim order and the writ petitions are accordingly liable to be dismissed. The respondents shall file counter affidavit before the Tribunal within four weeks from today. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall take up the main O.As for expeditious disposal. It is needless to say that the reversion orders of the petitioners are subject to result of the O.As. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The order of status quo granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 25.9.2009 Note: Issue copy within one week B.O. kpr [1] 2004(3) Supreme 126 [2] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)