—78 3Sq'aTTin^RT, e)TTly'l<o, (sfrtwy ^IHdl sb*11<sb WI. 200 3H^r VW (Tpfg«l?!T) SD^I ?iT f<;-f ^sff an^r shHicti ,«.>. d ;€..- ^gwofer sii^r Raikishore Nayak, |/o Shri Govind Nayali:, ;ed about 44 years, Qccupation - Prob. Accouiits Clerk, Fnder Sr. DFM SEC Raihvay, Qilaspur, 4t present resident at Qtr. |o. 1447 /1 Constniction Colony, |EC Railway,.Distnct Bilaspur 9 3 4. o. CONSTI-1 <it)1ilTciq1l ITm^f Tf.'f^t <f<qt<cK ^3lfil*T 311^1 ;.G.) Uiuon of India, Fhrough the General Mariager Soiifh pasteni Railway Garden Reach, ^alcutta-43 (W.B.) Fhe Central Adininistrative Tnbunai, pench at Bilaspur (C.G.) 'hrough its Registrar Additioiial Divisional Raihvav ^lanager, SEC Railway, Bilaspur IC.G.) pr. Divisioiial Firiaiice Maiiager, pEC Railway, Bilaspiu' (C.G.) 'uiaacial Advisor & Chief Accounts pfficer, -SEC, Railivay, BUaspur (C.Gj AS-XI-HC—78 / sn^w yv f<;-fi+ ^TT 3n^T^>*i|ct> •^ !fc ~F5^ •<\WW^, W^\WI<c, RlcilU^'l. 'qra^n" *^ieb •••—••—•—•---••—--•—--^ 200 3n^?T ^ra? (^pf^B??) T^ TCiiwdfOT aii^r ^_ HON'BLE SHR1 SU2S Shri G.S. AhluwaUa ftie petitioner. Shri Aniit Choudliarv of India. Shri Lokesh Siagh, A' Counsel for fhe Intervener- Heard. By fhis Writ Petiti<| Constitution of India, ttie correctness of ttie order d| Central Adiuiaistrative Jabalpur, ia Original Apil learued Tribruial has disia) leaving tlie cost to be bomel The brief lacts leadiat vide notice dated 10.01.2[ Oflicer, Soufii Eastem appUcations froiu the eligitf ^i<f[(n*f"li +ii+idf '^^'fe^t' if^'^.R i? ajfim aii^r id SIui H.S. AhluwaMa, Counsel for Counsel for respondent No. 1-Uuion .vocate on behalfofShri R.S. Marlias, Sarla Sinlia, a.1 ^n filed under Article 227 of tlie lentioner has q^iestioned tbe legality, |ated 20th July 2006, passed by the ^ribuiial. (CAT), Jabalpui' Bencb, (lication No.314/2006, wbereby, fhe [.ssed Uie appUcation of fiie petitioner by fh.e parties. to filmg of fhis Wnt Petition are that >01, the Senior Divisional Accounts R^ibvay, BUaspur, iuvited options aad caadidat^s of Group 'D' and Lower ». XI-HC—78 sn^ss yx WM ^Tan' ^n^r ?ti*iiqi to S^ET.^TraTy'iq', SiTfly'lti, Rlrilti^ *<W^I *t11+ ----•••••••—••—-••• •-••••-^ 200 an^?r 'qsra? (lj'iif-t«i<w) ?RiTW^if?(i3n^( -3 Groxip 'C' Staffhavuig a nij on 1/6/2000 for tlie proi petationer tiereui raoved ai|L name for fhe proiaotional p the Senior Divisional Accol Bilaspur issued flie Ust oi appear ia fhe wiitten examiaatioii to the grad( petitioner's nam.e appeaj examiaation was conductei 18.6.2001 (Aimexure P/4)| wntten examtaation was qualified ia tlie written ex4 Accounts Clerk, In flie sai<| No.2 aiid all tlie 4 quali&e|: viva-voce test on 21/6/2Q petitioner was declai-ed firsli one vacaacy to be iltled u-j.) subraitted to Senior Dlvi) approval aiid empaiiehnen| by fiie Selection Coinini1|t< Divisional Accoiuits Officetr order dated 25/6/200l posted ia fhe Fuian.ee D^1 (Aunexure P/7) aad vide o| ^I^Ict'ttl'fHIH^ 'it\fe1^ <F<*f^IT ^STRlHSII^T |iiiiiiid. of 3 yeai's of regular service as lotional post of Accoiuits Clerk. The appUcation for consideration of his bst. Vide Notice dated 30th May 2001, ^ints Ofiicer, Soutli Eastem. Railway, 11 caiididates, who were eligible to est of 25% DepaTtiaental quota of Accounts Clerk, iu. wbich, ftie red at Sl.. No.l. Thereafter, tlie on 13/6/2001 aud vide.notice dated a list of qualified caadidates in fhe )ub]ished, in which, 4 persons were nation for proinotion to fhe post of list, fhe petitioner was raiiked at Sl. 1 candidates were asked to appear ia 01. Tlie result was declared aad the in flie Bierit list. Since ffaere was only on or before 21/6/2001, ftie Ust was ional Accounts Officer, BUaspiu' fcr and tiie petitioner was recornmended •e. After approval froin tlie Senior ~, tlie petitioner was empaiielled vide icxure P/6). The petitioner was partment visie order dated 27.6.2001 der d-ated 01.08.2001, tlie selection of ^fcs..,,. CT^T ?n R-ii+ 'd^ff 3?1^?T sti*licft ^ ^ 3SET '^WM'f, y!\W16, ^<jl>W^( W^v\l **<1* WI, 200 an^r iisiw (1pf^9?tf) '^ITWdftg 311^1 sonle alsb flie petitioner to fhe post accouiit of detection of was chaUenged by fh Adiuuiistrative Tribiuial, No.401/2002 Emd vide ori| Bench, Calcutta, allowed was directed to examine reference to Oie Recruitml departmental quota as for fhis puipose aad coi conipetent aufhority to fh^ froia fhe date ofissuance the petitioner.hereui, inadel Divisional Railway Man4 Bilaspui- and after hear) representation and also AdditionaS Divisional R^ 28.4.2006 (Aimexui-e P/ caiicelled aiid the petitioiiej In fhc said orderj Maaager obseived as tbUo\'| 1. TIiat as per f been form.ed iii ord( laaiatamuig fhe in|t passed caildidates. Ip ^il'Hfo^fk +11+1C'lf "Ff [~^\ •Cf^t-^.K ^aTRnaii^r of Account.s Clerk was caacelled on irregularities iu tlie selectioii, which petitioner before fhe Central |Calcutta Bench, Calcutta by O.A. i|ler dated 2/1/2006, CAT, Calcutta pie O.A. of tlie petitioner aad ADRM |tlie grievan.ee of fhe petitioner with ;nt Rules tor proiaotion under 25% fhe Scheine of exainination notified luiiicate the fuidingand decisiou offhe petitioner withiii a period of 60 days |f tfae said order. In piu'suaiice of that, a representation before the Additional ^ger, Soufti Egst Central Rsdlway, ^ng fhe petitioner, considerm.g the after bearuig the department, the ^ilway Maaager vide order ^ dated held fhat flie wttole selection is is reverted back to the post of Peon. the Additional Divisional Railway istt.Sri.No.95/88, Panel should have :r of seaiori^r ia Group -'D' category ir-se' seiiloriSy position among the 'ut iii your case, it is observed fhat the 1)9 / XI-HC—78 3:esr ^i<<ii?i<<, ^•y'Ks, Rirtiyy *11*4<'ll **<l°b "^ 200 aii^r WT (<;-f 'cTSH STT^T sh^icb '•^^ an^T wiq; ('^fyi^sT) p^ael selection drew fhe according to the exl were ottier senior qualilyiug inarks considered for eiapa^ielni prepared on inerit b^ 2 Th.at your .aUegat|ioii 10.08.2001 thatyo^ caiididates is not cojrect froia Class-IV posp. Departiueiit 011 yojur seniority through Sr.DPOyBSP's O.O.I') tfaerefore, your seivii( be counfed froru Q seuiorily of Group-'] 3 That in the instaut froiu ajaioagst Qualiped extent rules of RaiM's Edition and Estt.Srl.l has been nientioned.l That your allegatioa|i regarding your that "it lias been al presuiuiug, Sr. cbNicl^l'l *11+1^f '^,'fe(3t' <Pq<^R 1; SlRpT 311^1 ia order of merit, which is not ui |ent rules of Railway. Moreover, fhere candidates who had also secured ti fhe selection, but could not be ^efaient, as tiie above panel was totally Isis iastead of seniority. ia flie representation dated are senior aiuongst fhe other passed and fai- froin fhe ti-uth. You came in Elect.(TRD)/BSP to Accounts own request acceptimg bottoia Iitter Departiaental Transter vide lo.E/TRD/SS/207/97 dated 30.04.97, ;e ia ffae Accouirts Departuient caunot 15.05.95 for fhe purpose of iater-se ' aad will be counted froia 08.05.97. :, Sr.DAO while preparing the panel candidates has not foUowed the 7ay i.e. Para 171 of IREM, Vol-I 1989 No.95/98 iu which scheine ofselection Oase pro4iotlon that different Oflice Orders issued as Ac,counts Clerk iltentioning pproved by the coinpetent aufhoriU-" himsp'lf is coinpetent enougfa to !*• M-HC—78 SW^SS ?iT R-fi.'* ^TSTT 3TT^T ?t)+flch ^^ 3^5T "yi-41(?''<<, (SiTfl'M'lfi, (sK'iiyy KIKrtl (b^lleb •Wl, 200 an^?T 'wv (i^F"i«<i{w) 's^nwdtei sn^t ^ noinuiate fhe Selectf panel are not correj neither eiupowered nor approve fhe paa|( found in fhe selectioA ^on Coiniaittee aad also approve flie ;t. As per exteiit Rules, Sr. DAO is Ito iiominate fhe selection cominittee ;1. Hence, gross irregularity lias been olrder TIus orier was chaU4 Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur|b}' decided by the icapugned We have heai'd Mr. C|r Counsel for the petitioaej respondent No.l/Union ol] for the Intervener - Sai'la S|uu Mr. G.S. Ahluwaiit 20.07.2006 of Central JabaSpur, as well as tlie Divisional Raiiway Mari; Bilaspur argiied that as concei-aed, ftie petitioaer's| 05.05,1995, therefore, he 4 the pauel, but depai~tineD|< seniority of the petitioner also argued that as far a( Accoiuits Officer to approve the paael is diaons constltute conc «t>l<<I<'1<i1l tlPRJT if.'fS'A <f«ltt;l< ^? silgq ail^r Adituilistt'ative ^nged by fhe petitioner before fhe CAT, O.A. No.314/2006, which has been by rejecting it. ]r.S. AhluwaUa aad Mr. H.S. AbliiwaUa, ~, Mr. Amit Choudhaiy, Counsel for India and Mr. Lokesh Siagh, .Coiuisel jinha. wliile assaituig fhe order dated Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, order dated 28.4.2006 of Additional ;er, South East Central Railway, |lar as point of iater-se seniority is original appointtaent was ia fhe yeai- t?as seiuor to the caadidates enlisted ia |t has wioiigly calculated the iater-se ;st the enipaaeiled caadidates. He coiupetence of flie Serdor Divisional fhe Selection Coniiaittee aiid to ticemed, ttie Sr. Divisional Accounts / ^ , XI-HC—78 ^S33^ .f'''f'""st""%., ^'fe^'1 1 1 '!^ l' ^,^.^,^ . sn^g ^ef h-tt* W sn^l sbtljc)i fc TSET "!<i<< iciti, »Tn'y'is,(si<?)i'yy ^INdl sbMlsb "V^ 200 an^r 'raw (ijdif^aditf) 'renWHferaii^r Adlditional Ofiicer is equivalent to fherefore, he was eiupo Coitimittee aild to approve order of ADRM as also fh|e sustaiaable ia law, fherefor^ On fhe ofher haitd, order of CAT as also flie orc| Having heard leametl perased the record. Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia selected caudidates ought f() iater-se senionty, Now cotning to the p|3iut petitioner was appointed o|u ought to have beea counte<|] fhis arguinent has been nt RaUway Mauager in para AluiexuTe R/4 would sh( as a in> his own request ac( Sm.ee tiie petitioner hiia Depai'tiaeut to Accouiits +l-41f14l'1<flH?iy '^^l^t <Fq<^K ^siRpTsn^i Divisional Raibvay Manager, tvered to noTninate fhe Selection |lie panel. He iurfher argued fhat the order of CAT is perverse aiid not ^, fhe petition be aUowed. Mr. Amit Choiidliary supportecl fhe erofADRM. counael for the pai'ties, we have pj.as not disputed that the paael of have bsen prepared ia order of flieir i^ised by Mr. Ahluwalia fhat the 05.05.1995, therefore, his seivices froin fhat dat^, iii the first instaiice, Eatived bv ftie Additional Divisional of tiis order. Moreover, a perusal of vw fhat the petitioner, who was scale of Rs.750-940/- (RSRP) ia epting bottoni seaiority in aew elf sought, transfer trora. Electtical Departnient ^ aiid by acceptmg his / ^ XI-HC—78 ^s^ '% ''•' ?E^^^—- '•'-:. ..^- /. 1 „ aii^rw [<•<(+ 'cTSTT STT^T shnict) !ifc- TEST ^TPTTciq', axfl^'is, (s|c»iyy ^INdl sbMleh "ff^ 200 an^r 'we cipf^g^ET) couilted KuiAar. request vide order dated ti-aasierred to Accounts D' bottoni of tlie seniorit^r list correctly held tliat fhe ser Departnient caiuiot be cou: iater-se senlority of Group- 08.05.97. As the said senic he accepted fhe saine ao.ci that his seniority be contention of fhe petitioner| einpan.elled caiididafes is representation of Ravl was conducted aad tlie aut| fhe petitioner v;as junior adinitted position that nomitiated tlie Selection C<| whereas, as per £heinles, flie Selection Coniinittee Gonnection, the latest am4 Ministiy of Raiiways vide i1|! Railwav Establishinent IV] advaiice correctioii slip Nd anu para 217 thereofreadl "Selection Bo^ orders of the Generd ^>N[(n-41i *iH<sif Tf^yl <F;>l^l< ti'stfwsn^i |30U1 April 1997, tlie petitioner was (;partm.eut aiid he was placed at the therefore, fhe ADRM has rightly and 'ice of the petitioner ia the Accoiuits (ited froia 05.05.95 tbr fhe piirpose of fD' and tlie same wffi be counted from. Irity was fixed on his request ti'aiisfer, now he is'challenging and claimias from 05.05.1995. Therefore, fhe |fhat he was senior inost person in the Inot con'6ct and that is whv on fhe ^ar, aa eiapaaelled caadidate, enquiiy •borities reached to the conclusion that to Ravi Kiiniar. Again, it is aji Benior DivisioHal Accoiints OfBcer ^inniittee aiid also approved fhe panel, ic was neiftier empowered to noiaiaate nor to approve fhe paael. la this adinent caiTied out by fhe Authoriy, s letter dated 22.5.2000, ia tlie Indiaii aiiual Volum.e-1 (1989 Edition), tlie 107 (Airaexure A-15) is relevant here as under : irds aiav bb constituted luider the Maaager or -Head of fhe Department I* T^^Wv^V, y^\w\6, Rirtiuy \.-1. '; \ ^,j SII^T ?iT Ki'li't ^V 3?T^T s»»+i -< (^ WTCTT **<l«b Wl, 200 3II^?T ^IiTO (1pf^?*T) S<diW -y^a 3H^r 7 or ofher conipeten Raitway Mauager/ Chief Woi|kshop In fhe present cas| year 2001, examiaatioEJ fherefoi-e, at fhat tune, tj force aiid as per this psc^a. Accounts Officer was no| Conunittee or to approve| noiuiuate the selectioa Divisional Railway M; Maaager/ ChiefWorksho].) For the foregoing r{ was correct aad consideitm.! rules, tlie Central Arln-jini Jabalpur vide impugnedj O.A. of the petitioner anji auy intlrmity or irregalanfy There is no subsj leafned coiuisel for fhe p^titi' In the result, fhej accordingty disniissed. et)N[fi<ili ^wdl* ^'f^1^ <[<i<^i< ^ajRnaii^r authorit)7 not lower fhaii a Divisional sr/Additional Divisional RaAvay Maaager." ;, fhe appUcations were invited iu fh.e was conducted in. fhe year 2001, (lis ameudinent iu. para No. 217 was ia 217, the Additioaat Senior Divisional |t coinpetent to nominate fhe Selection the panel, fhe coinpetent aufhority to jminittee aad approve the pauel was the jnager/Additional Divisional Railway Maiiager. ^asons, the order passed by the ADRM all fhese aspects and tlie prevai'lin; |inistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, order dated 20.7.2006 dism.issed tlie tliereby, the CAT has not committed ia rejectuig fhe O.A. oftlie petitioiier. ^auce in tiie argniuents advanced by |titioner. petition is liable to disinissed aad is :itta lEbn: Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge Sd/- SunaKumarSinha Judge