IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 7993-CAT OF 2002 DECIDED ON : 23-07-2008 Ram Singh Bhatia & others ....Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Manu K Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondents 2 to 4 Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5 AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) The petitioners are challenging the assignation of retrospective seniority granted to respondent No.5 after being unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). For promotion to Group “B” from Group “C” in the Diesel Component Works, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as DCW), the rules prescribe that 70% of the vacancies are to be filled by promotion and 30% through Limited Departmental Comparative Examination (hereinafter referred to as LDCE). On 14-08-1996, LDCE was conducted for 2 vacancies, one for general cateogry and one for scheduled tribes category. Respondent No.2 secured second place in the general category and no reserved category candidate could clear this examination. Vide letter dated 15-02-1997, the respondent-DCW requested the authorities of Indian Railways to carry forward the reserved point and permit it to fill up the same by a general category candidate (which would mean respondent No.5). By order dated 11-07-1997, the petitioners were promoted to group “B” under the 70% quota mentioned above. Vide letter dated --2-- 24-11-1997, the authorities of Indian Railways rejected the request for carrying forward the reserved category appointment of scheduled tribes. In this interregenum, the next LDCE was scheduled vide letter dated 15-09-1997 for two general category seats and one scheduled tribe seat. On 08-05-1998, the result of this LDCE was declared vide which two general category candidates were declared successful while no reserved category candidate could pass. Thereafter by letter dated 15-12-1998, the Indian Railways Authorities agreed for carrying forward the scheduled tribe vacancy which had remained unfilled in the last two LDCEs. After this approval, the DCW promoted respondent No.5 and on the premise that the approval was given for the 1996 LDCE, assigned him seniority above the petitioners who , as stated above, had been promoted by order dated 11-07-1997. The petitioners challenge this action placing reliance on Rule 205 of the Railway Establishment Manual which is quoted hereinbelow:- “205.Currency of Panel.-The panel will be current for a period of 2 years from the date of approval of the competent authority or till a fresh panel on the basis of next selection becomes available whichever is earlier. Where provisional panels are drawn the currency will count from the date of approval of the provisional panel. If the operation of an approved panel has been held in abeyance either wholly or partly as a result of injunction from the Court of Law the currency of the panel should be reckoned after excluding the period covered by the Court's directive. Before operating the panel after the vacation of the injunction/after disposal of the case by the Court of Law, the personal approval of the General Manager should be taken.” --3-- They claim that life of the panel in which name of respondent No.5 had been included, had come to an end with the receipt of fresh panel dated 08-05- 1998. The respondents claim that since the approval to carry forward the scheduled tribes vacancy was with reference to the panel of which respondent No.5 was a part, his promotion and consequent assignation of seniority was valid. In our opinion, the contention of the petitioners deserves to succeed. Rule 205 (supra) is a mandatory provision and, in fact, such provisions find mention in many Service Rules. The learned Tribunal has erred in ignoring this important aspect. In our opinion, the panel in which the name of respondent No.5 was included, came to an end with the new panel and, thus, if that scheduled tribe vacancy had to be filled up from general category candidate, it would have to be from the LDCE, the result of which was declared on 08-05-1998. That brings us to the relief which is to be granted to the petitioners. Though the invalidation of the panel of which respondent No.4 was a part could have the consequences of nullifying his promotion yet, keeping in view the fact that he was promoted as far back as in 1998 and that no blame can attach to him for this mistake and the fact that the petitioners have not prayed for the invalidation of his promotion, we deem it appropriate to restrict the relief to the extent that the petitioners would all be placed senior to respondent No.4 and would be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising therefrom. This petition is, thus, allowed in the above terms without, however, any costs. Sd/- [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE sd/- [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE July 23 ,2008