IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Petition No.23968 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 1. Union of India, rep. by its Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Southern Railway, Chennai. 2. The Chief Workshop Manager, S & T Workshops, Southern Railway, Podanur, Coimbatore. 3. The Workshop Personnel Officer, S & T Workshop, Southern Railway, Podanur, Coimbatore. .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Arokiaraj 3. C.Kamalapathy 4. R.Palanivel .. Respondents Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondents, particularly that of the first respondent in O.A.No.792 of 2007, dated 28.8.2009 and quash the same as unsustainable in law, besides illegal and unlawful. For petitioner : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J) This Writ Petition has been preferred by Southern Railway against the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.792 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The aforesaid case was preferred by the second respondent- I.Arokia Raj against the proceedings dated 30.4.2007 and 12.6.2007 passed by the third petitioner herein (Workshop Personnel Officer, S & T Workshop, Southern Railway, Podanur, Coimbatore), whereby, promotion was granted to the post of Section Engineer. Further prayer was made to direct the petitioners herein (respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A.) to select the second respondent-applicant to the post of Section Engineer, pursuant to the selection process conducted in respect of memorandum, dated 16.11.2006. 3. The Tribunal, having noticed that the second respondent- I.Arokiaraj not only obtained more marks in the professional ability (written test) and has service record than that of the fourth respondent-R.Palanivel and the selection has to be made on the basis of merit, and thereby obtained more total marks, adding marks obtained in the seniority, set aside the select list dated 30.4.2007 and directed the appellants to re-consider the case of the second respondent-applicant and others for appointment as Section Engineer based on overall performance of the candidates. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners- Southern Railway submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the selection was to be made on the basis of over-all performance. According to the petitioners-Southern Railway, the Selection has to be made in terms of Paragraph 219 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (for short, "IREM"), Volume I, which clearly states that the name of the selected candidates may be arranged in the order of seniority. Pertinently, a proviso has been incorporated in the counter statement filed by the Railway. A cursory reading of the said Paragraph 219(i) of the IREM, Vol.I would demonstrate that the written examination shall be conducted and that the selection of the candidates can be based on various criteria and ultimately, the selection is to be made on the basis of seniority. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- Southern Railway and perused the records. 6. In view of the nature of the order we intend to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 7. Paragraph 219 of the IREM, Vol.I deals with the procedure to be adopted by the Selection Board. Clause (g) therein deals with the method which is primarily on the basis of over-all merit, as evident from Paragraph 219(g) including the note below the said provision and quoted hereunder: "219. Procedure to be adopted by Selection Board. ....... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ....... (g) Selection should be made primarily on the basis of overall merit, but for the guidance of selection Board the factors to be taken into account and their relative weight are laid down below:- E(NG) 1-69/PM 1-126 dt.18.9.69 Factors/Headings Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks (i) Professional ability 50 30 (ii) Record of service 30 - (iii) Seniority 20 - Total 100 60 Note:- (i) The item 'record of service' should also take into consideration the performance of the employee in essential Training Schools/Institutes apart from examining CRs and other relevant records. E(NG) 1-72/PM 1/192 dt. 27.6.73 (ii) Candidates must obtain a minimum of 60% marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregate for being placed on the panel. In a few cases where both written and oral tests are held for adjudicating the professional ability, the written test should not be of less than 35% marks and the candidates must secure 60% in written test for the purpose of being called in viva-voce test." 8. Admittedly, the petitioners-Southern Railway took the selection process and conducted the written test to find out the professional ability of eligible officers including the second respondent-applicant and other respondents. Their record of service, length of service, seniority, etc., were also noticed to allot marks in terms of the guidelines aforesaid. The marks obtained by the candidates were placed before the Tribunal, as shown hereunder: Sl. No. Name Professiona l Ability 50% Record of service 30% Seniority 20% Total 100% 1 C.Kamalapathy (ST) 40 18 20 78 2 M.K.Palanisamy (ST) 18 -- 18 Failed in the written test 3 R.Palanivel (SC) 38 17 15 70 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. Name Professiona l Ability 50% Record of service 30% Seniority 20% Total 100% 4 T.Joseph Manickarayan 42 24 13 79 5 K.Rajamanickam (ST) 30 20 10 60 6 I.Arokia Raj 45 24 8 77 7 Sebastian Daniel (ST) 30 19 5 54 A comparative statement of the second respondent-applicant- I.Arokia Raj and the fourth respondent-R.Palanivel, as seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, is as follows: Sl.No. Name Professiona l Ability 50% Record of Service 30% Seniority 20% Total 100% 1 R.Palanivel (SC) 38 17 15 70 2 I.Arokia Raj 45 24 8 77 9. In the above background, as the selection, as per the guideline, is to be based on the merit, the petitioners-Southern Railway ought not to have superseded the second respondent- applicant, who has obtained higher marks than the fourth respondent- R.Palanivel, who was selected. In this background, if the impugned selection list dated 30.4.2007 has been set aside by the Tribunal, with a direction to re-consider the case of the second respondent- applicant for appointment as Section Engineer based on the over-all performance of the candidates in the process of selection, it requires no interference. 10. There being no merits, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. Union of India, rep. by its Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Southern Railway, Chennai. 2. The Chief Workshop Manager, S & T Workshops, Southern Railway, Podanur, Coimbatore. 3. The Workshop Personnel Officer, S & T Workshop, Southern Railway, Podanur, Coimbatore. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.T.S.Rajamohan, Advocate, SR 63596 W.P.No.23968 of 2009 SJ (CO) RH (7.12.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/