IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15893 of 2008 Between: 1.M. Sridhar Reddy S/o. M. Narayan Reddy R/o. D.No. 1/4, Ramarajaupalli (Post) Cuddapah, A.P. 2.V. Lalithamba W/o. Krishna Rao Diesel Locoshed, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.Railway Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2.General Manager, South Central Railway, Government of India, Raial Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P. 3.Railway Recruitment Board, 18 Miller Road, Bangalore-560 045 Rep. by its Member Secretary. .....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 writ order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not considering the representation of the petitioners for reinstatement into service in the light of the closure report submitted by the CBI, under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in Case No. 8(A) /97 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, State of Karnataka is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement into service. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The court made the following order: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15893 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioners for reinstatement into service in the light of the closure report submitted by the CBI under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in Case No.8(A)/97 on the ﬁle of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for reinstatement into service. The facts, which are necessary for disposing of the writ petition, are as follows. The Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, issued an employment notiﬁcation (4/1995) calling for applications to ﬁll up 109 posts of Junior Clerk-cum- Typist (90 candidates for South Central Railway and 19 candidates for Southern Railway). The Railway Recruitment Board framed Recruitment Rules vide its letter, dated 17.07.1992, for the post of Junior Clerk- cum-typist. While in the case of South Central Railway all the candidates recommended by the second respondent were accepted and appointed, the Southern Railway felt that the recommendations of the second respondent were faulty, inasmuch as the candidates recommended had not been subjected to typing test. As such, the Southern Railway, vide its letter, dated 28.08.1996, sought clariﬁcation from the second respondent whether the procedure prescribed under the instructions had been followed. The second respondent, vide its letter, dated 02.09.1996, informed that skill test i.e., typing knowledge of candidates, was assessed at the time of viva-voce test. However, the Southern Railway vide its letter, dated 01.10.1996, returned the panel prepared by the second respondent alleging that the same was not prepared in accordance with the existing instructions. But, the second respondent vide its letter, dated 27.12.1996, reiterated that all the norms had been complied with. Thereafter, the oﬃcers of the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a raid on 13.05.1997 at the residence of the Member Secretary and Senior Clerk of the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore. All the employees in the meantime joined the services of the Railways. The CBI forwarded its report of investigation, dated 19.02.1998, to the Railway Recruitment Board, which in turn forwarded the same to its Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell made its recommendations vide its letter, dated 12.06.1998, to the eﬀect that the report of the CBI be accepted for the purpose of taking action against the erring officials. The Railway Recruitment Central Board passed a resolution, dated 16.02.1999, to the eﬀect that the Southern Railway in relation to the advertisement had observed serious irregularities in the conduct of examinations on the basis of the complaint, dated 01.04.1995. Based on the same, the Board, vide its letter, dated 25.02.1999, decided to cancel the entire panel for both the Southern Railway and the South Central Railway. The Board also directed that since the South Central Railway had already appointed the candidates, they shall be terminated, after giving notices as per the Rules. It is stated that all the persons including the petitioners who were appointed by the South Central Railway by virtue of 1995 recruitment process were served with identical notices-cum-termination orders, dated 22.04.1999, calling upon them to show-cause as to why their services should not be terminated, against which, several applications were ﬁled before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore seeking to quash the same. One Sri O.Chakdradhar ﬁled an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore challenging the said communication, dated 21.04.1999 and his termination, dated 18.08.1999. The Tribunal allowed the said O.A., against which, the respondents ﬁled a writ petition, being W.P.No.4898 of 2000 before the High Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents ﬁled Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Union of India and others v O.Chakradhar[1], set aside the entire selection process and also the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, as the entire selection process is vitiated. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, after careful consideration of the matter and referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v O.Chakradhar (one supra), wherein it was held that the entire selection process is invalid, dismissed a batch of O.As., ﬁled by the petitioners and others by its common order, dated 26.09.2002. Aggrieved by the same, some of the applicants preferred W.P.No.2297 of 2003 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the said writ petition by its order, dated 06.02.2003, observed that since the Apex Court has already set aside the entire selection process in the case of Union of India v O.Chakradhar (one supra), the Railway Board’s decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with, in turn, the observations made by the Tribunal dismissing the O.As. When an appeal was ﬁled by some of the applicants before the Apex Court, the same was dismissed giving liberty to pursue their remedies before the concerned High Court. Taking advantage of the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for reinstatement into service. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noted that in Union of India v O.Chakradhar (one supra), the Apex Court held that the entire selection process in respect of advertisement No.4 of 1995 is invalid. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court following the said decision of the Apex Court, in W.P.No.2297 of 2003 has upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The present O.A., was also disposed of by the Tribunal in the light of the above judgments. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt.23.07.2008 VGB [1] (2002) 3 SCC 146