Pradeep Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the Indian Railways Service of Mechanical Engineers on 31.03.1987 on being selected by the UPSC. Several officers who joined subsequent to him in the service, were appointed as Divisional Railway Managers (DRMs) in various Divisions, on being selected by the concerned committee. The applicant feels aggrieved by his not being posted as DRM. In this OA, he has challenged the various orders through which persons who are junior to him were appointed as DRMs, and prayed for modification of the select list for the year 2016-17, and posting orders dated 13.04.2017 and 05.05.2017. Relief in the form of mandamus is also sought to place the applicant above respondent Nos. 7 to 14 in the category of DRMs.

On earlier occasion, the applicant filed OA No.1659/2017, complaining about non-inclusion of his name in the select list for the purpose of posting of DRMs. The OA was OA- disposed of on 15.05.2017 at the admission stage, with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representation dated 17.04.2017 submitted by the applicant, and to take decision thereon in accordance with the norms, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance with the same, the Railway Board took a decision, and it was conveyed through letter dated 04.07.2017. It is to the effect that though the applicant is otherwise entitled to be included in the select list, his name was excluded since the selection committee took note of the report of the Medical Director, Central Hospital, Northern Railway, and concluded that it would not be in the interests of the administration the applicant be entrusted with the responsibility of DRM, which involves strenuous work and regular field inspections, which are essential part of the duties and functions of DRM. The applicant feels aggrieved by that communication.

It is pleaded that nowhere in the relevant guidelines or recruitment rules, there is any provision for evaluation of medical fitness, in the context of inclusion of the names of eligible officers in the select list, and there was absolutely no basis for omitting the name of the applicant. It is also stated that the applicant was not subjected to any medical examination, and in his case alone, the medical report was taken into account.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. They submit that the applicant has undergone the operation for transplantation of both the kidneys, and he is vulnerable to infections, apart from being weak and not physically fit. They contend that the procedure prescribed for preparation of select list specifically refers to the physical ability of the candidates to be included, and it was only in view of the job requirement and the nature of duties to be discharged as DRM that the name of the applicant was not included. It is stated that the inclusion in the panel is not a promotion, and the applicant is eligible to be considered for higher positions in accordance with rules.

We heard Dr. K. S. chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri V. S. R. Krishna and Shri Krishan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

At the outset, we need to take note of the broad and well settled legal submissions made on behalf of the applicant. He placed reliance upon several judgments rendered by the British Courts, such as Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947 (2) ALL.E.R. 680]; Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service [1984 (3) ALL.E.R. 935]; Champion v Chief Constable of the Gwent Constabulary [1990 (1) ALL.E.R. 720]; and R. v Lord Saville of Newdigate & others Ex Parte and others [1994 (4) ALL.E.R. 860], as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Syed Yakoob v K. S. Radhakrishnan [1946 (5) SCR 64]; Bombay Union of Journalists & others v State of Bombay [1964 (6) SCR 22]; Commissioner of Income Tax v Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd & others [(1983) 4 SCC 392]; Shri Sitaram Sugar Company v Union of India & others [(1990) 3 SCC 223]; Indian Oil Corporation Limited v Nilofer Siddiqui & others [(2015) 16 SCC 125]; State of Punjab v Bandeep Singh & others [(2016) 1 SCC 724]; and Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad & Another v Raja Ram Jaiswal [(1985) 3 SCC 1]. The precedents referred to above are legal classics for important propositions of law, such as reasonableness, exclusion of extraneous considerations, ensuring non-arbitrariness in the selection process, etc. Nobody may have any reservations about them. The record of the applicant is such that he is otherwise entitled to be included in the list prepared for appointment of DRMs.

The Railway Board issued guidelines on 16.08.2016 for short-listing of eligible officers, for the purpose of posting as DRMs in the Indian Railways. There exist eight Services in the Railways, and depending upon their involvement in the train operations, posts of DRMs against each Service is mentioned. They range from 14 posts in the Indian Railway Service of Engineers, to 2 posts in the Indian Railway Personnel Service. In all, there exist 68 posts of DRMs. Para 2 of the guidelines reads as under:

"2. The posts of Divisional Railway Managers (DRMs) are in Senior Administrative (SA) Grade (Pay Band-4, Rs.37,600-67,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/-), as revised from time to time. Posting as DRM is not a promotion but a posting in the same grade, i.e., SA Grade, without conferring any additional pecuniary benefit. Officers are shortlisted for posting as DRMs, on recognition of the fact that the task is arduous in nature and that DRM is the overall in-charge of the Division dealing with all aspects of Railway operations. Upon completion of their term as DRMs, the Officers are brought back to the same SA Grade."

The further requirement is that it is only the persons who are below the age of 52 years, that are entitled to be included in the list.  However, once an officer is included in the list, he would also be entitled to be posted, even if he crosses the age of 52 years, during the currency of the panel. Several other aspects are also mentioned. The tenure is also restricted.

Coming to the case of the applicant, it is no doubt true that there is no provision of law which mandates that a candidate is required to undergo any medical test before his name is considered for inclusion in the panel for DRMs. However, the fact that the post of DRM happens to be pivotal in the entire railway operations, and he is required to be fully involved physically and mentally, without any restrictions as to office timings, to ensure that the trains run properly, delays are avoided and mishaps, if any, are attended to on war footing, with his physical involvement, cannot be ignored.

At more stages than one, the applicant has made the respondents to know that his physical condition is very weak after he underwent a major surgery for transplantation of both the kidneys. A copy of the medical report is also placed before us, and it indicates that the propensity of his being infected, if exposed to outside atmosphere, is still there. It may be true that any person in the place of the applicant would be anxious and eager to work as DRM so that his experience and expertise are made available to the Railways. However, the Railways cannot ignore the personal safety of the concerned officer, on the one hand and efficiency of operations on the other. An officer, whose safety itself is to be looked after by others, cannot be expected to ensure safety to a gigantic organisation like the Railways.

We do not find any illegality in the non-inclusion of the name of the applicant in the panel. However, we make it clear the non-inclusion of the name of the applicant in the panel shall not come in the way of his further promotions, except where working as DRM is a condition precedent, for any promotion. The OA is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.