IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.17773 OF 2010 BHARAT PRASAD, SON OF SRI LALO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF THE VILLAGE PREMJIWAR P.O. – LAHERIA SARAI, P. S. – BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA, BIHAR ………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY GARDEN REACH, KOLKATA-43 2. THE CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GARDEN REACH, KOLKATA – 43 3. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 4. THE CHAIRMAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) PREET VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110 092. 5. B. D. MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, PRATAP GARHI, NARENDRAPUR, SOUTH 24 PARAGANA, WEST BENGAL ………………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Kumar Jha, Adv. Amar Nath Jha, Adv. For Respondent 1 to 3: Anil Singh, Adv. 03. 16.11.2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways. By the impugned order dated 28th July, 2010, O. A. No. 392 / 2009, preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, on considering the matter on merits and giving a finding in paragraph 7 that the facts of the petitioner’s case do not fail within the policy laid down by the Railway Board circular dated 10.12.2004 (Annexure-11). We have perused the policy contained in Annexure-11. The first paragraph of the policy 2 mentions the earlier instructions, according to which those students, who obtained requisite marks in Railway Commercial Working as well as in the aggregate in the prescribed subject within four attempts as allowed by CBSE (i.e., the main examination and its compartment and the immediately following year’s main examination and its compartment) will be offered appointment on the Railways as Ticket Collectors / Commercial Clerks subject to medical examination etc. The second paragraph mentions the further relaxation by the competent authority that in addition to the above- mentioned chances, students who secure prescribed percentage of marks in the immediate next years main and or its compartmental examination, i.e., 5th and / or 6th chances, may also be considered for appointment on the Railways. The relevant details relating to the petitioner are mentioned in his representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, contained in Annexure-9, which show that petitioner joined the vocational course of Railway Commercial (VCRC) in the year 2002 and after completing study of two years appeared in the final examination. He first 3 took the 2004 main examination unsuccessfully and because of cross in two subjects he was not permitted to take the compartmental examination. In the second year, he had appeared in 2005 main as well as compartmental examination, but was unsuccessful. He took two examinations in the year 2006 but was unsuccessful. He appeared in the main examination of 2007 and obtained the requisite aggregate of marks. The view of the Railways authorities is that as per the policy decision, the years are also explicitly mentioned and the chances are permitted year-wise. The first main examination and its compartment are followed by the word “in immediately following years main examination and its compartment” which would mean the year 2005 for the petitioner and as per the relaxed policy appearing in paragraph 2 of Annexure-11, he could have been considered for appointment only if he secured prescribed percentage of marks in the immediate next years main and / or compartmental examination, which would have been 5th and / or 6th chances. They should, in the case of the petitioner, refer to the year 2006 only and not 2007. 4 The Tribunal has held that within the four walls of the policy of the Railways, the petitioner’s case could not have been considered as he could not obtain the prescribed percentage of marks even in the year 2006. In fact, Annexure-9 shows that in the year 2006 petitioner had not taken the main examination, but only compartment 2 and compartment 3, wherein he was declared failed. We find no good reasons to take a different view, even after considering the three judgments which have been annexed as Annexures – 13, 14 and 15. Learned counsel for the Railways has pointed out that in Annexure-13, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench was dealing with a case where the examination cleared by the applicant was after a long gap only because the relaxation policy dated 10.12.2004 was not in existence earlier. In that view of the matter, the Calcutta Bench held that the gap was not material because the permissible chances could be taken only after the policy decision came into existence. In that case, the authorities had given their approval to the applicants for appearing in the examination and in that view of the matter the respondents were 5 directed to re-examine the cases of the applicants. The present case does not involve condoning a gap existing prior to the policy decision. Similarly, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Annexure-14 dealt with the case of an applicant who was admitted in a course under judicial orders when the scheme of vocational course in Railway Commercial was still prevalent and in the peculiar facts of that case the Delhi High Court held that although the scheme had itself been closed in 2005, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of completion of course after 2005. Clearly the issue before the Delhi High Court was of a different nature. Annexure-15 contains another order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, dated 29.08.2006. In that case also the last examination taken by the application was followed by a gap and after the coming into force of the relaxation policy, the application availed the 5th opportunity and passed the examination in March, 2005. In fact the judgment in Annexure-15 has been followed by the Calcutta Bench in the judgment contained in Annexure-13. After giving anxious consideration to the judgments, which have been annexed and cited 6 before us and on going through the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal, we find that impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is based upon correct interpretation of the scheme and hence this case requires no interference. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. SKM (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Mridula Mishra, J.)