IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1207 of 2008 Between: N.Subhas Silas, S/o N.Sangeetha Rao, Office of the Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntur. .... PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, represented by the secretary (Estt.) Railway Board, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada. 5 Sri B.Raja Rao, s/o B.Prabhakar Rao, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Nellore R.S. .... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order in Original Application No.799 of 2007 dated 20-12-2007 on the file of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the same and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SIVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY (ADD.CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1207 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. MEENAKUMARI } This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to and connected with the order in O.A.No.799 of 2007 dated 20-12-2007 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner after completion of his graduation in Commerce, applied to the notification issued by the Railway Recruitment Board calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies of Asst.Station Masters. After clearing the selection process, the petitioner was selected and joined at Guntakal on 20-5-1986. Further it is stated that due to personal reasons, the petitioner sought for an inter-division transfer on bottom seniority and came over to Vijayawada Division on 20- 6-1990. Since there was a provision, he got transposed as Senior Clerk by exercising the option on family planning grounds in 1995. Pursuant to the notification issued by the official respondents calling for volunteers for being posted as Welfare Inspectors, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Welfare Inspector Grade- III in 2000. Thereafter getting promotion as Welfare Inspector Grade-II in 2002, the petitioner was posted back to Guntakal Division. 3. It is further stated that on formation of Guntur as new division, the petitioner exercised his option and moved over to the said division in 2005. Since then, the petitioner had been discharged his duties in the said division. On 09-11-2005 the official respondents have issued a notification proposing to conduct a selection for the post of Personnel Inspector Grade-I (since re- designated as staff and Welfare Inspector Grade-I) against 20% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota in terms of the Railway Board’s letter dated 17-6-2005. The number of vacancies proposed to be filled up was 11 (9 un0-served, one each reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates). It is stated that the written examination was held on 21-4-2007 and the results of the same were declared by proceedings dated 10-8-2007 of the third respondent. The fifth respondent had been shown at serial no.9 and among those who secured 6-% and above, while the petitioner was shown at serial no.1 of the candidates who qualified under the relaxed standard by securing 50% and above below 60%. The letter dated 17-6-2005 of the Railway Board categorically makes it clear that the selection shall be based entirely on merit with reference to marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and service records. The said letter also specifies that the service records of only those candidates, who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the written examination, would be assessed. Yet another requirement contained therein is subject to usual relaxation for SC/ST staff those securing 60% in aggregate will not be considered eligible for inclusion in the panel. 4. It is also stated that the official respondents have prepared and communicated a panel by the memorandum dated 24-10- 2007, wherein the petitioner was included at serial no.10 and was shown as to be empanelled against the vacancy reserved for a candidate belonging to the scheduled castes. Consequent upon such an empanelment, the petitioner in fact sent to undergo 61 days training at the Personnel Training institute, Jodhpur/North Western Railway. 5. It is further stated that the fifth respondent moved O.A.No. 799 of 2007 calling in question the correctness of the order dated 24-10-2007 more particularly the action of the official respondents in adjusting the petitioner against the vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates. The sheet anchor of the agreement advanced on his behalf was that since the petitioner had obtained above 60% irrespective of the fact whether he is less meritorious than the petitioner in the overall position, he should be preferred as the petitioner had not obtained 60^ and thus the selection was liable to be interfered. 6. Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that he had been arraigned as a party respondent, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application even without serving notice to him. The Tribunal had set side the impugned select list dated 24-10-2007 so far as it relates to adjusting him against SC vacancy and directed the official respondents to promote the fifth respondent against the SC reserved vacancy in his place and revise the list accordingly within one month from the date of receipt of the order together with al consequential benefits. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. This is a case where the writ petitioner’s promotion has been questioned that too without serving any notice on him in the original application and also more particularly when the petitioner is arraigned as fifth respondent in the original application, no opportunity was given to him to defend his case. On 25-1-2008, this court issued Rule Nisi and called for the records. But there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was served with any notice in the original application. The Tribunal before considering the allegations made in the original application, the Tribunal failed to see that whether any notice is served on the petitioner herein, who is fifth respondent in the original application. 9. Under the above circumstances, without going into merits of the writ petition, we are of the opinion that this is a case where the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity to file his counter within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice and shall dispose of the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law positively or before 31-7-2008. 10. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________ JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR. 25-3-2008. I s L