Kailash Chand vs Central Administrative Tribunal

The petitioners have jointly filed the instant petition assailing order of the ld. Central Administrative Tribunal dt. 12.05.2014.

The respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by the selection process initiated by the respondent (Railway Establishment) in preparing panel dt. 01.02.2010 while making appointments against 33 1/3% quota of non-matriculate, reserved for the substantive members of Group-D employees having three years of regular service in the cadre, for promotion to the post of Commercial Clerk & Ticket Collector which is in Group-C.

Indisputably, the present petitioners, and as informed to this court, are graduate and initially joined service in Group-D and participated in selection process which the respondent-Railway Establishment initiated against 33 1/3% quota reserved for non-matriculate and the panel prepared on 01.02.2010 was including good number of members of Group-D staff, who were holding qualification over and above matriculate including graduation.

The respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the procedure which the respondent-Railway Establishment initiated holding selection of members of Group-D, who are non-matriculate, for whom 33 1/3% quota was reserved, and if matriculate employees with higher qualifications had participated in the selection process, their right of fair consideration would be jeopardized and they failed to find place in select panel dt. 01.02.2010, filed Original Application No. 195/2010 before the ld. Tribunal.

It has come on record that vacancies are notified vide Notification dt. 18.03.2008 of the post of Commercial Clerk & Ticket Collector in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900 & 3050-4590 for promotion under ranker quota of 33 1/3% non-matriculate and notified 11 vacancies i.e. 3 for Commercial Clerk & 8 for Ticker Collector from Group-D staff having three years regular service and as per Notification, notified posts meant for non-matriculate employees. However, it appears that when panel was prepared, pursuant to Notification dt. 18.03.2008, good number of persons who are graduate, like present petitioners, their names find place in the final select panel dt. 01.02.2010 and the applicant before the ld. Tribunal being aggrieved by the incumbents who are not eligible & participated in the selection process and after their name find place in the select panel dt. 01.02.2010, approached the ld. Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 195/2010 impleading the present petitioners also as respondents.

After the notices of the Original Application came to be served, separate reply was filed by the Railway Establishment and so also by the present petitioners, who are impleaded as respondents No. 3 to 13 before the ld. Tribunal. However, this fact remained undisputed from the material on record that the Notification, pursuant to which process for appointment to Group-C post was notified by the Railway Establishment on 18.03.2008, that stands confined against quota of 33 1/3% for non-matriculate but in the panel which was prepared by Railway Establishment, good number of employees who are matriculate and above including graduates, their names find place in the select panel. However, objections were raised that merely it was reserved for non-matriculate, it was not confined to the category alone and such of the employees who are matriculate and having higher qualification including graduation, still their right cannot be jeopardized but this court can take notice of the fact that as regards validity of allocation of quota of non-matriculate of 33 1/3%, for promotion of employees from Group-D to Group-C was not the subject matter of challenge before the ld. Tribunal.

Taking note of the material which came on record, the ld. Tribunal finally arrived at the conclusion that inclusion of such of the employees who are either matriculate or higher qualification against 33 1/3% quota, reserved specifically for non-matriculate working in Group-D post, certainly their right of fair consideration will be seriously jeopardized and further arrived at the conclusion that the very select panel prepared by Railway Establishment, impugned before the ld. Tribunal, dt. 01.02.2010 was not legally sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same was quashed and set aside with the direction to Railway Establishment to hold fresh selection on the basis of reserved eligibility meant for non-matriculate employees.

The petitioners, present in person, submit that they are indisputably graduates but the very purpose of consideration regarding promotion from Group-D to Group-C post on the basis of their qualification is bad in law and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and the quota which is reserved of 33 1/3% for non-matriculate for their promotion from Group-D to Group-C post is not legally sustainable and those who are holding higher qualifications, like petitioners, they too have right of equal opportunity and denial of their consideration against 33 1/3% quota reserved for non-matriculate is not legally sustainable in the eye of law.

Before we may examine the submissions, we would like to record that the provisions contemplated under the scheme of Rules regarding quota of 33 1/3% for non-matriculate of Group-D employees for their promotion to Group-C was neither subject matter of challenge before the ld. Tribunal nor before this Court and once the quota under the scheme of Rules is reserved for non-matriculate members of Group-D post against 33 1/3%, certainly those who are holding matriculate and higher qualification having their separate quota of 16 2/3% available for the petitioners to participate in the selection process.

After hearing the parties, present in person, this court finds no apparent or manifest error in the order impugned passed by the ld. Tribunal which may require interference under its limited scope u/Art. 227 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.