HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ELASPUR. CHHATTISGARH 5!NGLE BENCH: HON'BLE $HR! 5R. NAYAK, CJ. K. WPJT PETiTlON NQ. 6213 QF 2005 PETITICNER Smt. Krishna Devi Narmada. Aged about 41 years, Wlo. Shri Surendra $ingh Narmada, R/o. Vi“. Kapan, Via- Akaltara, Tahsil and Dist. Janjgir- Champa. (C.G.) Vs. REsPQNDENTs 1. Union 0f India Through Secretary Indian Raiiways, New Delhi. Sr. Divisionat Cammercia€ Manager SEC. Riy. Bilaspur (C.G.) Divisienai C0mmerc§al Ménager SEC. Raiiway, Biiaspur (CE) N Chief Divisional Commerciai Manager SEC. Riy. Bilaspur. (C.G.) Qhhatrapai Singh Kumbhaj S/o. Bra} Lai $ingh Kumbhaj R/o. Viii. Kapan, Tah. And Dist. Janjgir- Champa (CA3) finkw- Wegem: Shri ML. Pasture, [earned ceunsei for the petitianér. Shri Amit Chaudhari, learned Counsel with Mis5 Samata Jaih, iearned caunsei fer the responder-K5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on‘ 13" January, 2006) The Divisienai Commercial Managér S.E.C. Railway, Bila3pur, the thirii respondent herein, published a natification in ‘Nav Bharat’, a lecai daily. on 2?~0?-2005, inviting appiication for appointment of Passenger Halt Agent at six places including Kepan. The petitioner applied fer the pest ef Passenger Halt Agent at Kapen. Thereeitenivarde, the petitioner was called fer interview on O3-10-05. The petitioner appeared for the interview aiong with others. The third respondent seiected the fifth respondent ~ Chatrapai Singh Kumbhaj for appointment to the post of Paggerigér Halt Agent at Kapaa The petitianer being aggrieved by the appaintmeni 6f the f‘n‘th respondem has preferred fhis writ pewan. {2) Ii was contended that me appeintment 0f the fifth respandent mum. n9: be ggstained in law; begause, thaugh the third. respondent mnducfed the interview to assess the suitable candidate for the post 9f PaSsenger Halt Agent, the resuit' cf the interview was not disciosed and fifth respondent was appointed by the third respondent by draw of lots and therefore, his appointment oouid net sustained in iaw. Learned standing counsei for the respondent! Railways coutd, per central support the methed adopted by the thtrd respendent fer eelecting and appointrng oi the fifth respondent as Passenger Halt Agent at Kepan by drawing of lots and in support of his eubmission, Shri Amit Gheudhari, ieernecl Standing Counsel for Railways draws my attention to the administrative instructions which read as under: “Para iv (a)(3) of Board’e letter Ne. QQ/TGIV/HaltefPelicy dated 17-05—99 which wae modified vide Board’s letter of even number dated 8.6.99 may now be read as under: ‘ A Seiecticn Committee of Sr. Scaie Gfficers tram Commercial, Finance and Operating Deptts shall scrutinize and shortlist the eligibie offers. Selection will be by a draw of lots, drawn b‘y any child ii there is more than one suitable candidate Ali the eligibie oandidatee should be advtsed the date time and venue of the draw through Geurrer/Regd AD so that they may attend the draw if they so desrre (3) The fact that there was more than one candidate for the poet of Passenger Hait Agent at Kapan is not contested before me by the iearned counsei for the petitioner if there was more than One suitabie " ' 9 appiicant for the past of PaSsenger Halt Agérif at Kawii, a§ pér tiie administrative instruction cantaérled in para N (a) (3) seiewan has $0 be made by draw of tats, drawn by any chud. If the petkioner and the fifth .re3pondent were faund to be equally suRabie for the post of Passenga Hatt Agem at Kapan and singe there wa5 cnly ans past 9f Pa5sgnge: Halt Agent at Kapan, the method adapted by th$ third reapondsnt, I sheuid say, is in accordance with law. (4) in the resuit, there is no merit in thie writ peiiiion. it is accardi'rigiy diemissed. No ccetS. G'ief,?‘?§?i?,e A kaiW“