THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26017 of 2007 Dated : 17.01.2008 Between : Taj Mohammad and 5 others. … Petitioner/s And The General Manager (Rep. UOI), S.C. Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and 3 others. …Respondent/s THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26017 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Railways. 2. This Writ of Certiorari is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 24.10.2007, in O.A.No.254 of 2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the relief sought for by the petitioners, seeking to direct the respondents to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Passenger Goods Guards without subjecting them to the written examination, was not considered. 3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:- The petitioners are working as Senior Goods Guards for the respondents-Railways. While so, 52 vacancies of Passenger Goods Guards had fallen vacant in the year 2006. In order to fill up those vacancies, a notification No.OP/605/P.11/optg/pass.GA/Selec/Sc, dated 30.11.2006, was issued by the competent authority, notifying the names of the eligible candidates working as Senior Goods Guards and the procedure for conducting the test for selection to the post of Passenger Goods Guards. Having come to know that the Railway Board had passed a resolution, vide RBE Circular No.E (NG)1- 2000/PM1/41, dated 23.02.2007, dispensing with the procedure of conducting the written examination, the petitioners have made a representation, dated 06.02.2007, to the respondent authorities to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Passenger Goods Guards on the basis of the interview only. Subsequently, on 30.03.2007, it was further notified that the written examination for selection to the post of Passenger Goods Guards would be conducted on 14.04.2007 and 21.04.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal by way of filing Original Application O.A.No.254 of 2007. 4. When the matter came up for admission, the Tribunal, having gone into the merits of the case, had disposed of the O.A., observing that the selection process has to be completed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the notification, dated 30.11.2006. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in view of the resolution, dated 23.02.2007, of the Railway Board, the mode of selection ought not have been through written examination and instead the selections ought to have been made by way of viva- voce only. It is the further case of the petitioners that the earlier notification, dated 30.11.2006, was not intimated to them, therefore, it cannot be treated as a notification, at all, and the selections ought not have been on the basis of the written examination, which is contrary to the resolution of the Railway Board, dated 23.02.2007. 6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the notification, dated 30.11.2006 was not communicated to the petitioners, the same cannot be treated as a notification. It is his further contention that had it been communicated to the petitioners, they would have raised objections to the said notification then itself, opposing the selection process by way of conducting written examination. Therefore, he contends that the entire selections made pursuant to the notification, dated 30.11.2006, have to be set aside, inasmuch as, the same are contrary to the procedure prescribed by the Railway Board, in its resolution, dated 23.02.2007. 7. From a perusal of the said notification, dated 30.11.2006, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said notification was not communicated to the petitioners cannot be countenanced. It has been specifically mentioned in the said notification that the selection for 52 vacancies of Passenger Goods Guards would take place on the basis of written examination and the date of examination would be communicated later. It was also mentioned that all the eligible candidates mentioned therein, including the petitioners, be alerted for appearing the said written examination. 8. However, it is conspicuous to note that in the O.A., filed before the Tribunal, there was no pleading to the effect that the notification, dated 30.11.2006, was not served on to the petitioners. However, during the course of arguments only, this contention was raised before the Tribunal as well as this Court. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents refuting the averments made by the petitioners, inasmuch as, there was no occasion for the respondents to file any counter affidavit before the Tribunal, since the O.A., was disposed of, at the stage of admission itself. 10. With reference to the above, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways brought to the notice of this Court that the notification, dated 30.11.2006, was affixed in all the stations through which the Goods Trains would travel. He further asserted that it is imperative for the Drivers of the Goods Trains to get down at every station, particularly at important stations viz., Khazipet, Bellampally, Vijayawada etc., and report to the Station Masters concerned and watch the Notice Board. This Court has been further informed that all the petitioners have attended the pre- selection coaching conducted from 13.12.2006 to 08.01.2007 for the said written examination, which indicates that the petitioners are aware of the factum of conducting the written examination for the purpose of promotion to the post of Passenger Goods Guards. 11. It is to be seen that, in fact, these facts have been brought to the notice of this Court by way of filing counter affidavit before this Court. 12. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the notification, dated 30.11.2006, was not communicated to the petitioners is concerned, it has been averred in the counter affidavit that it has been informed to all the S.M.S., through which the Goods Train would pass, to inform all the eligible candidates, who were in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Passenger Goods Guards, about the issuance of the notification, dated 30.11.2006, and conducting of examination for filling up of the posts of Passenger Goods Guards. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the said communication to all the eligible candidates mentioned in the said letter/notice/notification, dated 30.11.2006, some objections were also received and the petitioners have participated in the written examination, but failed to get the selection. 13. Though it is the specific case of the petitioners that they are not aware of the said notification and despite filing of the counter affidavit, by the respondents, no rejoinder to that effect has been filed by the petitioners, before this Court. Therefore, we are not prepared to disbelieve the version of the respondents and believe the version of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of the letter/notice/notification, dated 30.11.2006. 14. Yet another important aspect that is to be considered is, on 06.02.2007, a representation had been made by the petitioners to consider their case, keeping in view their seniority and experience as Senior Goods Guards and to dispense with their appearance for the written examination. 15. At this juncture, it is important to note that the said representation is prior to the issuance of notification, dated 30.03.2007, fixing the dates of written examination. 16. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that subsequent to the notification, dated 30.03.2007, another representation, dated 06.04.2007, was made by the petitioners, reiterating their request to consider their cases for promotion dispensing with the written examination. 17. In this regard, it is to be noted that either in the first representation, dated 06.02.2007, which was made prior to the resolution of the Railway Board, dated 23.02.2007, wherein the procedure of conducting the written examination was dispensed with, or in the subsequent representation, dated 06.04.2007, said to have been made by the petitioners, the petitioners did refer the resolution of the Railway Board. Maybe that is the reason why they sought only the indulgence of the respondent authorities to consider their cases for dispensing with the procedure of appearing for the written examination and make selections basing on viva-voce only. 17. Further, when the names of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates were specifically mentioned in the letter/notice/notification, dated 30.11.2006, it is highly improbable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of the said notification, nor, as already pointed out, any rejoinder has been filed by them, refuting the averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents, in this regard. 18. Therefore, in our considered view, the Tribunal had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the procedure prescribed in the resolution of the Railway Board, dated 23.02.2007, cannot be made applicable for the vacancies that had arisen much prior to the notification, dated 30.11.2006, by which time the procedure of selection was by way of conducting written examination only. 19. Further, it has been pointed out by the Tribunal that the resolution of the Railway Board, dated 23.02.2007, specifically makes it clear that dispensing with the procedure of selection by conducting written examination would be for the selections to be made on or subsequent to the said resolution. 20. In the instant case, as already noticed, the notification was issued way back on 30.11.2006. Therefore, the procedure, which was in force, as on the date of issuance of the said notification alone, should be followed and was rightly followed by the respondents. The conduct and the version on the part of the petitioners, in this regard, cannot either be accepted or appreciated. 21. For the foregoing, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17TH JANUARY 2008 MSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26017 of 2007 17TH JANUARY 2008 (MSR)