Laljibhai C. Busa and Others vs Union of India and Others

Jayant Patel, J.—The present petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''CAT/Tribunal'' for the sake of convenience) in O. A. No. 362 of 2006 with Misc. Application No. 474 of 2006 and No. 307 of 2 007, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the finally published seniority list dated 6.12.2005 and subsequently dated 10/17.3.2006 and it has been further observed that it will be open to the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list of Assistant Loco Pilot in light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the judgment. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners herein are the employees of Western Railway, Rajkot Division and working as Diesel Assistants in Transport Division. On 2.1.1998, Western Railway, Rajkot called for the applications for filling up 25% of the Grade (C) direct recruitment vacancies by General Department Competition Examination (hereinafter referred to as "GDCE" for the, sake of convenience). On 28.10.1999 a panel of 224 employees was prepared for the post of Diesel/Electric Assistants. 30 candidates for Rajkot Division were notified and booked for training at Udaipur Training School.

It appears that in the meantime, on 6.10.1999, the Western Railway through RRB also recommended certain number of candidates for the very post of Assistant Diesel/Electric Assistants, Grade (C), which include candidates from Rajkot Division for the initial training. The original applicants before the Tribunal, as per them, were falling in that category. Thereafter, as per the schedule, the candidates were supposed to report for training on 17.1.2000. However, as the petitioners were not relieved, they could not join the training well in time, but the other batch, including the original petitioners before the Tribunal - Respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 herein, were relieved earlier. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were relieved after persuasion at the later stage and they joined training in the batch starting from 4.9.2000. As the respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 were relieved earlier and joined training, they were posted as Diesel Assistants on 3.11.2000 and they joined the duty on 7.11.2000, whereas the petitioners were posted on 9.11.2001. On 9.10.2003, seniority list was prepared, wherein the petitioners were shown above in the seniority list in comparison to respondents No. 3, 4, and 5. The respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 made representation, but ultimately failed, against which the proceedings were initiated by respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 before the Tribunal being O. A. No. 362 of 2006 and allied matters. The Tribunal ultimately, vide impugned judgment, quashed and set aside the above referred seniority list in light of the observations made therein. Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

We have heard Mr. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5.

The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, have taken us to the entire order passed by the Tribunal. However, in our considered opinion, the reasons are not satisfactorily recorded by the Tribunal as it was expected. In our view, it was required for the Tribunal to examine the aspect about the eligibility of the respective candidates, including those of the present petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 5 for consideration of the post in question. Thereafter, it was required for the Tribunal to further examine about the merits secured at the examination/training and thereafter the rules for placement for the candidates concerned, for inter se seniority. It is only after the consideration of the aforesaid aspect, the Tribunal could reach the conclusion that whether seniority list was properly prepared by the Railway Administration or not. Therefore, it appears to us that the matter should again be relegated to the Tribunal for considering the matter in light of the observations made herein above after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides and then to pass order in accordance with law.

We may also record that during the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 that pending the petition, Railway Administration has prepared new seniority list based on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the promotions have also been given. It further appears that in the present petition this Court vide order dated 10.7.2009 had observed inter alia as under:-

Rule. Notice as to interim relief returnable on 18th September, 2009. Any promotion made according to the revised seniority list dated 9th September, 2008 of the Assistant Loco Pilots will be subject to the further order made on this petition.

Thereafter, vide order dated 27.11.2009, passed in the present matter the aforesaid ad-interim relief was confirmed. Under these circumstances, even if the promotions are granted based on the seniority list prepared pursuant to the impugned order of the Tribunal, they are subject to final order, which may be passed by this Court in the present proceedings. However, it appears that neither the aforesaid factum of promotion already given and if yes, to whom is disclosed by name with the address of the persons concerned, nor they are joined as parties in the present proceedings. When the matter is to be relegated to the Tribunal for taking appropriate decision afresh on the aspects of placement of seniority of the petitioners herein as well as of the respondents No. 3, 4, and 5, it will also be required for the Tribunal to examine as to whether the promotions already granted are required to be set aside or altered or not after recording the conclusion on the aspect of seniority of respective persons as observed herein above.

At the same time, it appears to us that if further promotions are granted in the meantime, it may further complicate the matter and, therefore, status-quo qua further promotion deserves to be maintained, but of course, subject to the opportunity to the Railway Administration, to apply for vacation/modification, if any, unavoidable situation arise and by that time, the matter is not finalized. At that stage, the Tribunal may examine the aspect of modification of status quo or otherwise, if there are such contingencies satisfactorily demonstrated before the Tribunal.

In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside with the direction that O. A. No. 362 of 2006 shall stand restored to the file of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall examine the matter afresh in light of the observations made by us herein above after opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties and render the decision preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Until the Tribunal passes the final order, status-quo qua further promotions shall be maintained, but of course, with the liberty as observed herein above in case of any emergent situation and the circumstances so demand. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.