1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2008 The Union of India and another .. Petitioners Versus Renuka M. Kamble and others .. Respondents Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Petitioners Mr. R. G. Walia, for the Respondents CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 20th April, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 22nd February, 2008 in O.A. No. 363 of 2006. 3. The said matter before the CAT was pertaining to the recruitment of substitutes in the Railway Board – Petitioner No. 2. The petitioners have selected 88 candidates as substitutes in Group 'D' categories by adopting the procedure which is found faulty by the CAT. The Respondents in the present petition, had moved the CAT for consideration against group 'D' and while deciding the said application, the CAT has passed the following 2 order. “Para-13: We note that the very object of the said Master circular appears to bring more transparency in the matter of substitutes, as we find from the pleadings that thousands of substitutes are required to be engaged by Railways at times. From the scheme of appointment of substitutes by the Railway Board in the said Master Circular, it is noted that the substitutes are entitled to most of the benefits of regular incumbents in the matter of their pay scales etc. they are also considered for absorption after getting relaxation in the age limit and even in medical standards as and when regular vacancies occur. 14. we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Master Circular must be meticulously followed in the matter of engagement of substitutes. The action of the respondents, thus, in selecting substitutes against Group 'D' posts by picking and choosing is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and hence, untenable in the eyes of law. However, in the present case, since none of the affected 88 persons is made a party, we cannot quash the order of appointment of those persons in question as substitutes at their back. This prayer of the applicant is, therefore, rejected. However, we find that the applicants have made out a case for their consideration as substitutes against available Group 'D' posts by 3 giving them the same treatment which has been given to other similarly situated incumbents as they are otherwise duly eligible and qualified. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the applicants and, on being found eligible and fit, to engage/appointment them as substitutes or Group 'D' employees.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is not challenging the finding of the CAT. However, the petitioners seek direction regarding the system to be adopted by the Railway Board while selecting the substitutes. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners are not challenging the findings of the CAT, however, the CAT ought not to have given direction to consider the case of the respondents as substitutes by the process which found faulty by it. 5. If the submission of the learned counsel is accepted, then, by virtue of said analogy, the impugned selection of 88 also stand vitiates. However, the CAT has taken the precaution of not cancelling the selection of these 88 candidates as they were not party to the Original Application. We find no fault in the said order or the direction by the CAT to the present petitioners for considering the case of the original applicants i.e. respondents in this petition. We do not find any illegality or error in the order passed by the CAT. Hence, the petitioners have no case on merit. 4 In the result, the petition stands dismissed. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.) jpc/-