THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.19967 of 2005 Dated: .01.2008 Between: P. Sitaram Das. ..Petitioner. and The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.19967 of 2005 ORDER: Heard Sri Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in adopting the draw of lots as a method of selection for selection of Halt Agent to Mokasakalvapudi station in pursuance of the tender notice No.B/C.210/HALTS/NOTICE/03-2, dated 13.07.2005, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner duly taking into account the experience obtained by him in rendering the Halt Agency for the past over 33 years and award the contract to him. 3. Sri Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and also would submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Sri T.S.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondents had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit in general and also the specific stand taken in paras 5,6,7,8 and 9 in particular, and would submit that in the light of the same, the writ petition is to be dismissed. 5. It is averred by the petitioner that the Indian Railways maintain railway stations and also necessary paraphernalia for the commuters to be served. The maintenance of stations, amongst various other purposes includes issue of tickets to the commuters etc. For this purpose, it would be necessary to have staff ranging from Porter to Station Master/Assistant Station Master. The railways had taken a policy decision that wherever the stations are so small and number of trains that would stop in the stations is not many, the maintenance of the station would be outsourced. This would save money for the Indian Railways as it would be only paying commercial at a fixed percentage on the sale of tickets. Other duties like signature etc., may not be necessary in the stations which fall through lines. 6. It is stated that in pursuance of the said policy, applications were called for from willing individuals for taking up the assignment of Halt Agents. The eligibility condition as prescribed was 8th standard. The petitioner had responded to such an application and was one among the 6 or 7 persons, who responded for being appointed as Halt Agent to the Mokasakalvapudi railway station, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District. The applications were scrutinized and eligible candidates were subjected to interview. The petitioner had been selected and was appointed as Halt Agent for the said station in the year 1972. 7. It is stated that to ensure proper functioning of the agent, a security deposit initially of Rs.150/-was insisted. The Petitioner had deposited the same on 21.09.1972. Subsequently, the same had been enhanced to Rs.2000/- and he was asked to deposit the balance of Rs.1850/-, which had been done by him on 27.02.2001. All through the period of 33 years, he had discharged the duties as Halt Agent with utmost sincerity. 8. It is further stated that since the said station is in his native place, petitioner had motivated the people in and around the village to make better facilities available to the station. During his tenure as a Halt Agent, he had ensured the leveling and rising of the platform, give a facelift to the station building; provide drinking water and maintained the station premises clean and green. In fact while the other stations were lagging behind in the process of electrification, he approached the authorities of Indian Railways to provide electricity to illuminate the station and booking office. For various reasons, the authorities had not shown the interest that is liable to be shown in matters of this nature. It was at that stage petitioner motivated the villagers to render voluntary service to erect poles etc., and it would not be any exaggeration to state that this halt station was the first of its kind in 1981 to have platform lighting. Thus, the petitioner had developed the station. 9. It is further stated that there is a provision for utilizing the services of individuals to assist the petitioner in the duties as a halt agent. Petitioner requested permission from the concerned to utilize the services of his son Sri P. Srinivasa Rao as an assistant. The Railways had authorized him to utilize Sri P. Srinivasa Rao as his Assistant for discharging the duties of Halt Agent. From 1992 onwards, his son had been assisting him. It is not out of place to state that initially the tenure had been prescribed for the halt agents to discharge their duties. It is evident from the fact that he had continued in the said capacity for the past over 33 years. 10. It is further stated that while the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent herein had issued notification No.3/2005 dated 13.07.2005 inviting applications for awarding Halt Agency at stations over Vijayawada South Central Railway. As many as 39 stations were notified, of which item No.27, is the station at which he had been working as a Halt Agent. The notification specifically pointed out the documents etc., that are liable to be appended to the application form. It would also state proof in support of the experience is liable to be attached. It is an indication that experience would have weightage for deciding the cases of individuals for award of the Halt Agency insofar as the individuals, who were already working as Halt Agents. The application form had been furnished by the Railways itself. Both himself and his son had applied for being considered as Halt Agent to Mokasakalvapudi station. 11. It is further stated that it is necessary to point out that the notification does not stipulate anything regarding the selection process. In view of the past conduct and policy of the railways, it would be legitimate expectation of every applicant that the selection process would be undertaking. This expectation had been further fortified by the fact that the notice was issued on 25,08.2005 requiring him to attend the office at 10.00 hrs, on 06.09.2005 with the original certificates. Even here, the experience certificates had been solicited. It was on 06.09.2005 when he had appeared before the concerned, they intimated him that the interview had been dispensed with and lots would be drawn for awarding the halt agency. Petitioner raised an objection to this as the same had not been specified in the notification nor in the interview letter. Further there would be no meaning in asking for experience when the method of selection is only by draw of lots. The respondents had not given any satisfactory explanation for the objection, but had proceeded with the process and lots were drawn. The 4th respondent herein had been successful in the said method. It is likely that he would be given the Halt Agency, this action of the respondents is being challenged in this writ petition. 12. It is further stated that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and is without justification of law. It is a settled principle of law that the notification must contain clear stipulations including the method and manner of selecting candidates in pursuance thereof. Any action which is not contemplated in the notification cannot be justified and as such the entire process insofar as it relates to Mokasakalvapudi station is liable to be set aside. 13. It is further stated that it is also necessary to point that there cannot be any hidden criteria for selection and every applicant/contestant must be known of the method and manner in which the selections are liable to be undertaken. In the instant case, the official respondents are guilty of concealing the method of selection as it is no where specified that it would be by draw of lots. As such they had adopted hidden criteria for awarding the halt agency and this is not in consonance with law and the consequences would only be to set aside the selection process. 14. It is also stated that the official respondents had asked for the experience if any, which is an indication that experienced candidates would have a preference of those remaining equals. There had been no consideration of the experience factor and all the individuals had been treated alike irrespective of the fact that whether they had required experience or not. Grouping unlikes together is also a face of discrimination as treating unequals equally cannot be contested by this Court. 15. It is stated that the narration made above would clearly indicate that the petitioner had put in lot of effort to develop the station and these factors would have weighed with the authorities if only the applications had been considered on its merits. Having failed to do so, the action of the respondents suffer from the vice of leaving out relevant consideration and taking into account irrelevant ones, which rendered the decision as arbitrary and consequently liable to be interfered by this Court. 16. It is further stated that draw of lots as such may not be considered objectionable where all those remained equal. In the instant case, persons with experience would from a separate class and if the railways were to decide as to who should be awarded through draw of lots can be adopted. But unfortunately in the present case both experienced and inexperienced candidates had been clubbed together and this amounts to discrimination and as such the action of the respondents in awarding the contract to the 4th respondent cannot but be set aside by this Court. 17. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had been discharging the duties with utmost dedication for the past 33 years and will continue to discharge the same as long as the contract had been awarded to the 4th respondent. Hence, the balance of convenience lies very heavily in his favour, warranting an interim order as prayed for. 18. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court praying for appropriate relief. 19. In the counter-affidavit filed by R1 to R3, it is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable on the principle of ‘Estoppel’ since the petitioner and his son participated in the draw conducted to grant license to railway tickets at Mokhasakalavapudi Halt Station. This writ petition is filed to scuttle the efforts of the division to allot the said ‘license’ to the 4th respondent, who is possessing the qualifications required and winner of the draw. 20. It is also stated that the respondent No.1 is not necessary party to this petition since in terms of Section 2(32) of the Railways Act, 1989, Railway Administration means the General Manager of a Zonal Railway. It is stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways had been framing the policy in regard to appointment of an Halt Agent and accordingly, the licenses are being issued. 21. Further, it is averred that passenger halts are opened between two stations for convenience of the traveling public and such halts are deal with only passenger traffic according to the instructions issued by the Railway Administration from time to time, and they are not open for parcels and goods traffic, and even they are not allowed to book luggage at his halt. The Railway Administration had been appointing ‘Halt Agent’ for selling railway tickets on commission basis where there is no financial justification for posting of departmental staff, and as per policy, the selection of halt agent is being done on the application basis. 22. It is also averred that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways had issued policy instructions vide its letters dated 17.05.1999, 08.06.1999, 15.09.1999, 08.09.2000, 03.04.2001, 18.04.2001, 17.10.2001 and 24.06.2005 in regard to opening of halt stations, closure of uneconomic halt stations, appointment of halt contractors, payment of commission to halt contractors, extension of booking zone of halt stations, up-gradation of halt stations into flag stations, down-gradation of flag stations into contractor operated halt stations, changing the names of railway stations etc., The following is the summary of the letters which specifies criteria for appointment of an individual as a Halt Agent/contractor. Para IV of letter dated 17.05.1999 which was modified vide letter dated 15.09.1999 and 24.06.2005. (1) The halt contractor should be a permanent resident of the place where the halt station is opened. (2) Minimum Educational Qualification should be at least 10th standard pass for new contractors. (3) A section committee of Sr. Scale Officers from Commercial, Finance and Operating Departments shall scrutinize and shortlist the eligible offers, selection will be by a draw of lots, drawn by any child if there is more than one suitable candidate. All the eligible candidates should be advised the date, time and venue of the draw through courier/regd. AD so that they may attend the draw if they so desire (Board’s letter dated 24.06.2005) (4) The antecedents of the applicants shall be verified before this appointment as halt contractors. (5) The halt contractor should produce a medical certificate showing that he is fit for the active service and free from any communicable diseases. (6) Applications for appointment of halt contractors shall be invited through advertisement in the local newspapers (Board’s letter dated 15.09.1999) (7) Period of contract is 5 years. Action should be taken well in advance before expiry of contract, to call for fresh applications. The existing halt contractors should also be eligible to apply. (Board’s letter dated 24.06.2005) 23. It is further stated that in tune with the policy guidelines, the division had called for applicants in the prescribed format through an advertisement in local dailies for appointment of halt agent for five years period at 39 halt stations duly fixing the last date as 18.08.2005 for submission of the applicants. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the said advertisement got published in Deccan Chronicle & Vaartha daily on 17.07.2005. The applications were called for Mokhasakalavapudi halt station also vide aforesaid notification. The aforesaid notification indicated the percentage of commission payable to the Halt Agents, and the selection is purely contractual in nature, candidates called for interview will have to attend the same at their cost. In this present case, ‘interview’ means the applicant required to produce relevant documents in original before the committee to substantiate their claims in the original application made, and but not otherwise. Since the Ministry of Railways categorically specified that selection will be by a draw of lots, drawn by any child if there is more than one suitable candidate, the division had followed the principle of ‘draw’ by child for candidate, the division had followed the principle of ‘draw’ by child for selection of a halt agent in the presence of all eligible applicants. 24. It is further stated that six applicants responded to the notification and the three officers committee had fixed the date as 06.09.2005 for interview and draw, and accordingly, necessary communication was made to all the six candidates, and the said committee found suitable all the six applicants for draw as all of them having possessed requisites prescribed by the Ministry of Railways. In this connection, the details submitted by the six applicants tabulated, and obtained signature of each applicant. The petitioner and his son responded to the advertisement and both were found eligible for draw, and accordingly, their names were also included along with other four applicants. The draw was conducted in front of all six eligible candidates, and before the committee of three senior scale officers by a child namely baby Prathyush aged 5 years and 4th respondent namely Sri Peddireddi Veera Raghavendra Rao was winner of the draw. Accordingly, the said Sri Peddireddi Veera Raghavendra Rao is appointed as ‘Halt Agent’ for Mokhasakalavapudi halt station vide letter dated 22.09.2005 followed by letter dated 30.09.2005,on getting approval from the competent authority. The said applicant is also native of Mokhasalakalavapudi and possessing all requisites. 25. It is further stated that the petitioner is the existing halt agent for Mokhasakalavapudi halt station and the railway administration never granted license in permanent nature to the petitioner. Any license granted by the railway administration is for a particular period only, and thereafter, the request for renewal of license will be considered, in case, the rules framed by the Ministry of Railways permits. Accordingly, the petitioner continued in the said halt license. Finally, Ministry of railways categorically stated that existing halt agents, who were appointed prior to the issue of the revised policy, should be given one time extension up to 16.05.2004 (i.e., for 5 years from the date of issue of the revised policy on 17.05.1999) and appointment of halt agent should be made only through applications in tune with the new policy. Accordingly, the applications were called for Mokhasakalavapudi Halt Station along with other stations. 26. It is stated in reply to the averments made in paras 1 to 19 that the allegations of the petitioner were denied. The petitioner put to strict proof of the same. As stated supra, the division had called for applications for appointing suitable candidate as a halt agent for Mokhasakalavapudi halt station. The petitioner and his son had participated in the process, but their names did not come in the draw. The petitioner filed this petition because no one from their family selected as halt agent. The contention of the petitioner that the experienced and inexperienced clubbed together for selection is untenable. The petitioner before his appointment as halt agent is also inexperienced one. Secondly, the administration wants only persons having requisite qualifications but not as contended by the petitioner. The allegations of the petitioner on the notification are incorrect and untenable. The administration solicited information from the candidates for a specific purpose, and to know whether the applicant is having requisite educational qualification, health standard, conduct, age, nativity, financial background. The administration also solicited information in regard to experience only to assess the capability of the applicant whether he is able to maintain station records, but not otherwise. The administration used to instruct the supervisory officials to train halt agent in maintaining the records/station and in selling tickets, in case of persons not having similar experience. The mode of selection through lots by draw is in accordance with the instructions contained in the Ministry of Railways policy. The draw was conducted in front of all the applicants who were found suitable in the interview. It is pertinent to mention here that the administration appoints halt agent where there is no financial justification for posting of the departmental staff to maintain the station to sell the tickets. There is no locus standi in questioning the selection process having participated. Because the petitioner and his son are not benefited out of draw, they filed this petition making untenable and incorrect grounds. 27. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 28. In the light of the letters, which had been specified in para 6 of the counter-affidavit, and in para IV of the letter, dated 17.05.1999, which was modified by letter, dated 15.09.1999, dated 24.06.2005, and also in the light of the clear specific stand taken in paras 7,8, & 9 of the counter-affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated: .01.2008 SJ