IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 14513 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.1046/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, PALAKKAD DIVISION, RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KALLEKKULANGARA P.O., OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DIVISION, RAILWAY DIVISION OFFICE, KALLEKULLANGARA P.O., OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.RAJAGOPALA PANICKER, S/O.M.P.NARAYANA PANICKER, SECTION CONTROLLER, CENTRAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, NEAR OMINI UP SCHOOL, DHONI P.O., OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR R1 SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN FOR R1 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R1 SRI.P.A.KUMARAN FOR R1 SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No. 14513/05 PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P(S)529/II/13/VOL.III DATED 9.3.1988 OF CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, ALONG WITH AVENUE CHART. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P(S)529/II/12/VOL.III DATED 6.7.99 OF CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, ALONG WITH AVENUE CHART. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.ZTO/152/TC SEC.CONT.DATED 12.7.2000 OF PRINCIPAL ZONAL TRAINING CENTRE, TRICHI. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF OA.NO.1046/01 FILED BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM BY FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A9. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R1 FILED BY RAILWAY IN OA.1046/01. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A10 FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN OA.1046/01. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 9.3.04 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A11 AND A12 FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN OA.1046/01. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ADDL.REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R2 AND R3 FILED BY RAILWAY, INOA.1046/01. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF M.A. DATED 24.3.04 INOA.1046/01 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A13 FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN CAT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SR.DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER IN OA.1046/01. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.2.05 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM IN OA.1046/01. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPROVED MODULES FOR STAGE WISE TRAINING OF GROUP C AND D STAFF OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A14 TO THE OA ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL REJOINDER. EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 1.6.04 IN OA.1046/01 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14513 OF 2005 S ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.1046/2001. The first respondent was the applicant. The applicant was working as Section Controller under the Palakkad Division of the Southern Railways from 15.3.1999. He was promoted to that post from the feeder category of Yard Master. Later, seeking regular promotion to that post with effect from the said date, he filed the above O.A. During the pendency of that application, he was regularly promoted to that post with effect from 3.1.2002. So, at the time of final hearing, what remained in the Original Application was, what should be the date of effect of the promotion of the applicant to that post. 2. The petitioner claimed promotion on the strength of Exhibit P2 Avenue Chart for promotion. In fact, Exhibit P2 is an executive order showing the method of appointment to the post of Section Controller. The same was issued on 6.7.1999. Earlier, W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -2- the field was governed by Exhibit P1 Avenue Chart issued on 9.3.1988. As per Exhibit P1 Avenue Chart, 15% of the vacancies in the cadre of Section Controller were to be filled up by Assistant Yard Master. The selected incumbent will have to undergo prescribed training for a period of one year. As per Exhibit P2, to fill up the aforementioned 15%, Yard Masters were also included in the feeder category. In other words, Assistant Yard Masters and Yard Masters formed a combined feeder category for the post of Section Controller. Regarding training, Exhibit P2 provides that the selected incumbent should complete the prescribed period of training. But, the period was not specified. The writ petitioners took the stand that the applicant should undergo training for one year. Aggrieved by the said stand and contending that he need not undergo any training as he had already undergone such training for promotion as Yard Master, the O.A. was filed. It was pointed out that the training he underwent is identical to the training given to the incumbent, who is proposed to be promoted as Section Controller. 3. The writ petitioners resisted the application relying on W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -3- the period prescribed in Exhibit P1, for training. The first respondent/applicant submitted that Exhibit P1 is superseded by Exhibit P2 and the prescribed period mentioned in Exhibit P2 is contained in Exhibit R1(A). As per Exhibit R1(A), the prescribed training period is only 42 days, which he has already undergone. The Tribunal considered the above point and held that the applicant need undergo training only for 42 days and therefore, it was ordered to treat his promotion as regular with effect from the date he completed 42 days training, that is, from 13.7.2000. The order of the CAT is produced as Exhibit P11. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exhibit P11. 4. The Railways canvassed the very same point before this Court, which they unsuccessfully canvassed before the CAT. According to them, the first respondent could be promoted as Section Officer only on completion of one year's training. It is common case that the petitioner was promoted in 2002 without insisting or clearing one year training. Going by Exhibits P1 and P2, we are of the view that Exhibit P1 is superseded by Exhibit P2. We also notice that in Exhibit P2, the period of training is not W.P.(C)No.14513/05 -4- specified. So, the general prescription issued in 1994 in Exhibit R1(A) will govern the field. If that be so, the Tribunal has rightly overruled the objections of the Writ petitioners and ordered to treat the promotion of the 1st respondent/applicant, regular with effect from 13.7.2000. We find no jurisdictional error in that decision warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn