1 193.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.193 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.961 OF 2003 Union of India through Secretary Railway Board & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Shri Rajendra Kumar Raj & Ors. ...Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.244 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1753 OF 2002 Union of India through Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Shri J.P.Shoke ...Respondent ...... Mr.D.V.Gangal with Ms.Vaishali Agane for Respondent No.6 in support of Notice of Motion. Mr.Suresh Kumar for Ori.Petitioner/Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 29, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The relief claimed in the Motions is essentially to direct the writ 2 193.11 petitioners to hold a supplementary test for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) employees in accordance with the order of the Tribunal dated 30th March, 2001. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads thus: “In the facts and circumstances of the case we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 11.07.1998, 07.08.1998 and 02.09.1998 and direct the respondents to give, supplementary test to the applicants for selection to Class II post/grade `B’ and consider them for promotion if found suitable. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the OAs are followed. No costs.” 3. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioners before this Court. The operation of the order passed by the Tribunal has been stayed in terms of order dated 15th July, 2002. At the same time, however, the Division Bench of this Court made it clear that the promotions already granted to the General category candidates will remain unaffected. The Court further observed that grant of stay of the order of the Tribunal will not prevent the writ petitioners from considering the case of the SC/ST for promotion. According to the applicant/original respondent No.6, the writ petitioners were expected to comply with the direction of the Tribunal of holding supplementary test for selection of applicants/respondents in the 3 193.11 Writ Petitions to Class-II Post/Grade `B’ and consider them for promotion, if found suitable. The argument is clearly misconceived. That direction of the Tribunal has already been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 15th July, 2002. Indeed, the Division Bench made it clear that the writ petitioners shall consider the cases of SC/ST for promotion. In terms of the said observation made by the Division Bench in its order dated 15th July, 2002 during the selection process conducted in the year 2002, 2003, 2004 as also 2008, the cases of the SC/ST for promotion have been duly considered. This position is stated in the reply affidavit filed to oppose the Motions as well as can be discerned from the reply affidavit of Prabhash Kumar, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Gazetted) filed to oppose the Notice of Motion No.174/2005 dated 11th July, 2005. 4. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of these assertions made in the above affidavits. In other words, it is not possible to accept the grievance of the applicants that inspite of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 15th July, 2002, the writ petitioners were obliged to conduct separate supplementary test for selection of Class-II Post/Grade `B’ to consider the respondents including respondent No.6 for promotion, if found suitable. Besides, it has come on record that the writ petitioners have 4 193.11 already revised the seniority list during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. The said seniority list has not been assailed in any proceedings so far. According to the writ petitioners, the cases of each of the employee belonging to SC/ST are being considered for promotion on the basis of the said seniority list. 5. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the aforesaid relief claimed in the present Motion cannot be countenanced. 6. The applicant/original respondent No.6 has asked for further consequential reliefs in these Motions. For the reasons already recorded, these Motions are devoid of merits. The same are disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)