IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15990 of 2010 1. MD.ANWAR ANSARI S/O LATE MOHAMMAD ALI, R/O VILLAGE- JAIRAM BAZAR, P.S.KHAGAUL, DISTT-PATNA. 2. UMESH PRASAD YADAV S/O SRI RAM AVTAR RAI, R/O VILLAGE- SIWALPUR, P.S.SHAHPUR, DISTT-PATNA. 3. SHIRDA RAI S/O BHAKTI BHUSHAN PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- NASARIGANJ, P.S.DANAPUR, DISTT-PATNA 4. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE KAPIL DEO SINGH, R/O LOCO COLONY, QUARTER NO.124, “E”, P.S.-KHAGAUL, DISTT- PATNA……………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THRU GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, ZONAL OFFICE, HAJIPUR, DISTT-VAISAHIL. 2. CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, D.R.M. OFFICE, DANAPUR. 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, D.R.M. OFFICE, DANAPUR………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS . ----------- For petitioners:- Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. For respondents:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Railway Adv. ------------ 03/ 26-Oct-2010 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 20th January 2010 contained in Annexure-8 whereby Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has dismissed O.A. No. 21/2009 preferred by the petitioners. 3. The Tribunal has noted in pagaraph-2 the long and chequered history leading to the present 2 litigation. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.06.1987 the petitioners and several other got the opportunity to apply for being included in a panel for engagement as substitutes within the Loco Department under Danapur Division of Railways, only because they, the petitioners and the other applicants fell in the category of sons of railway employees who had either retired or were about to retire. 4. Out of 229 empanelled candidates 128 were appointed and the petitioners have been unsuccessful in getting an appointment although they have earlier filed several original applications before the Tribunal and once they had moved this High Court through CWJC No. 12868 of 2002 which was dismissed on 20th November 2002. Even after the dismissal of the writ petition the petitioners pursued their claim before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order contained in Annexure-8. 5. Many issues relating to what should be the age of such a panel and whether it can remain valid for ever and also issues relating to age qualification of such panelists for appointment to Government post 3 have been raised before us. However, we are not inclined to go into those issues because on a basic issue we find that such recruitment process in favour of sons or wards of retired railway employees offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. A catena of judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court have adversely commented even in respect of schemes for compassionate appointment that such schemes are not strictly in conformity with the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but so far schemes for compassionate appointment have been permitted by the courts. But the present scheme is much different from a scheme for compassionate appointment and gives a preferential and favourable treatment to sons and wards of not an employee who died in harness but to those who have retired or are about to retire. Such scheme of appointment cannot be provided any stamp of approval by us in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary of State of Karnataka V. Uma Devi, in our view clearly disapproves such 4 scheme of appointment because it does not give equal opportunity to compete for a job under the State to other eligible candidates. 7. In the peculiar facts of the case and considering the aforesaid legal and constitutional mandate, we find no option but to dismiss the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)