IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32302 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. R.V.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.C.G.VISWANATHAN NAIR, HEAD CONSTABLE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR (TRAIN ESCORTING), RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT NO.93-H, ANWAR GARDEN, POOJAPPURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. V.SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.VARADA REDDIAR, HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, THIRUCHIRAPALLY JUNCTION, TIRUCHIRAPALLY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.96-F, RPSF COLONY, KHAJAMALAI, TIRUCHIRAPALLY-23. 3. P.V.RAJU,AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.P.V.VARGHESE, HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRICHUR PERMANENT ADDRESS: PADINJAREMOLEL HOUSE, PUTHUPADY POST, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. D.JOSEPH DEVAMANT, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.D.N.DEVANESAN, CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRAINING CENTRE,KIMBER GARDEN, KAJAMALAI, TIRUCHIRAPALLY RESIDING AT NO.45/B, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE QUARTERS, RPF TRAINING CENTRE, KHAJAMALAI, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-21. WP(C).No. 32302 of 2007 ::2 :: 5. A.P.DEEPAK, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.P.BHARATHAN, CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, CALICUT, RESIDING AT "KAJAL NIWAS", VALIYANORE PANCHAYAT, KINAR STOP, VARAM P.O., CANNANORE DISTRICT. 6. V.PADMAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.M.VELAPPAN NAIR, HEAD CONSTABLE, SPECIAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KUNCHU VEEDU, DEVANAGAR- 42, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.D.HEERA SMT.R.R.REJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, CHENNAI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, PALGHAT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, TIRUCHIRAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32302 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners, who are Head Constables in the Railway Protection Force, aspire for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors of the Railway Protection Force. It is common case that in terms of the existing Rules and Instructions on the subject, 40% of the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector of Railway Protection Force are to be filled up from among Head Constable/Constables with 10 years service, by a process of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination [LDCE]. The remaining vacancies are to be filled up from among Head Constables on the basis of the seniority/suitability. The filling up of 40% vacancies is governed by Rule 72 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. 2. Ext.P1 notification was issued by the 2nd respondent inviting applications for filling up 50 vacancies under the 40% 'LDCE' quota. Petitioners and others were found eligible as evidenced by WP(C)NO.32302/07 2 Ext.P2. Subsequently, 33 persons were promoted, as evidenced by Ext.P3. On the petitioners' making enquiries, they understood that the number of vacancies notified under Ext.P1, was reduced from 50- 33. A corrigendum was issued under Ext.P6 dated 29.5.2006. This corrigendum came to be issued for the purpose of implementing the directions issued by this court in Ext.P8 judgment which came to be upheld by a Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment. Ext.P8 was concerned with the selection to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector conducted in the year 2001. Apparently, the selection was cancelled by the Railways itself and the said action came to be challenged before this court. This court found that the reasons for cancellation were flimsy. This court directed revival of the select list and enforcement of the same. There were originally 23 persons included in the list drawn up pursuant to the selection conducted in 2001 for appointment to the 40% quota. At the time when Ext.P8 judgment came to be delivered on 6.12.2005, there were only 17 persons remaining to be appointed WP(C)NO.32302/07 3 under the 40% quota. Those 17 persons, who were selected as per Rule 72, had to be accommodated against the 40% quota and according to the respondents, they had to be accommodated against 17 vacancies notified under Ext.P1. Hence the corrigendum, Ext.P6, which is challenged in the writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondents contend that though originally a select list was prepared pursuant to the selection conducted in 2001, the same came to be cancelled. It was only by Ext.P8 judgment that the persons included in the select list were directed to be appointed to the 40% quota. Since, such persons included in the select list could be appointed only against the 40% quota, they were absorbed against the vacancies notified in Ext.P1. The vacancies notified in Ext.P1 are the vacancies that were existing as on the date of Ext.P1. It was, therefore, necessary to reduce the number of vacancies. WP(C)NO.32302/07 4 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy and learned counsel for the respondent Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan. By consent of parties, the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 5. Once of the aspects that require to be considered arises from Ext.P9, which is a cadre re- structuring undertaken by the Railway Board in 2004. Clause 3.1 of Ext.P9 reads as follows: “3.1 Normal vacancies existing on the date of effect viz. 1.11.2003 (in respect of non- combatised staff) or 1.7.2004 (in respect of combatised staff), except direct recruitment quota, and those arising on that date from this cadre restructuring including chain/resultant vacancies should be filed in the following sequence: (i) From panels approved on or before 19.3.2004 (in respect of non-combatised staff) or 1.7.2004 (in respect of combatised staff) and current on that date; (ii) and the balance in the manner indicated in para 3 above. 6. Thus if there was approved panels in respect of combatised staff and current on 1.7.2004 WP(C)NO.32302/07 5 such panels should be enforced notwithstanding the re-structuring ordered under Clause 3. But if there were no such panel as on 1.7.2004, those vacancies had to be filled up on the basis of seniority/suitability. 7. One of the aspects that has come up for consideration and which is argued at the Bar is as to what happened to the vacancies of Assistant Sub Inspectors in the 40% quota that had to be filled up by enforcement of the select list, which was originally prepared in 2001 and which was directed to be enforced by this court in Ext.P8 judgment. When Ext.P9 was issued, Ext.P8 judgment was yet to be passed. Clause 3.1 of Ext.P9 should have been enforced and therefore, the vacancies which had to be filled up under the 40% quota, must also have been filled up by applying the criteria of seniority/suitability mentioned in Clause 3 of Ext.P9. In other words, the vacancies which had to be filled up by eligible candidates under the 40% quota would have been filled up by persons on the basis of WP(C)NO.32302/07 6 seniority/suitability. But, this is a consequence which seems to have arisen by reason of Ext.P9. It should also be noted that Ext.P9 is not specifically challenged by the petitioners. 8. But, thereafter when Ext.P8 judgment came to be passed on 6.12.2005 and ultimately it was confirmed by the Division Bench in Ext.P7 judgment, the persons who were petitioners in the said cases had to be accommodated against the 40% quota. The entire vacancies under the 40% quota available as on the date of Ext.P1 had been notified under Ext.P1 and therefore, the respondents had accommodated the said 17 persons from the 50 vacancies which were notified in Ext.P1. I am not in a position to say that the action taken was illegal. After all, the respondents had to take appropriate steps to comply with Ext.P7 judgment. I should also take note of the time lag between the selection conducted in 2001 and 6.12.2005 when Ext.P8 judgment came to be passed by this court. 9. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P6 as such. But, WP(C)NO.32302/07 7 nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the implementation of Ext.P8 judgment should not result in detriment to the persons who are not parties to the said judgment. They cannot be considered as bound by the said judgment. It is further submitted that it is not the intention of the petitioners to disturb any person, who might have been promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in 2004, pursuant to the implementation of Clause 3.1 of Ext.P9. It is made clear that none among such persons need be disturbed at this stage. But, I find substance in the contention that persons like the petitioners need not suffer on account of the reduction in the number of vacancies under the 40% quota brought about by reason of the cancellation of the selection conducted in 2001, which cancellation was found to be illegal as per Ext.P8 judgment. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider whether the 17 vacancies, which were reduced from the 50 WP(C)NO.32302/07 8 vacancies notified in Ext.P1, could be made available to the persons found eligible in the selection conducted under Rule 72 of the Rules. A decision in this regard shall be taken, after ascertaining whether the vacancies, which had to be filled up under the 40% quota and available as on the date of Ext.P9 were filled up by persons under the 60% quota on the basis of seniority/suitability. If it is so found, then a proportionate number of vacancies may be made available to persons included in Ext.P2 rank list, over and above the number of vacancies which have already been filled up by virtue of Ext.P3. Proceedings in this regard may be passed by the 1st respondent within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge WP(C)NO.32302/07 9