AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the three petitions arise under the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.Nos.1185 to 1187
of 2009 dated 31.05.2011 allowing the Applications filed by the employees.
For the sake of clarity, the parties are described as applicant and respondents, as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The applicants have approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) To call for the records and to set aside the (I) Order No.T/P 535/I/EA/SEQ & DRQ/Vol.III, dated 16.07.2009, passed by the Second
Respondent, (II) Order No. T/P 535/I/EA/SEQ/DRQ/Vol.II, dated 03.12.2008, passed by the Second Respondent, (III) Order No. T/P
535/I/EA/SEQ & DRQ/Vol.II, dated 21.07.2008, passed by the Second Respondent, (IV) Order No. T/P 535/I/EA/SEQ & DRQ/Vol.II, dated
25.06.2008, passed by the Second Respondent and quash the same;
(ii) To direct the Respondents to appoint the applicants to the post of Artisan Grade III w.e.f. 25.10.2002, with all other consequential benefits,
including arrears of pay and allowances in the said post;
(iii) To award costs.
The main grievance of the applicants was that they were not appointed to the post of Artisan Grade-III with effect from 25.10.2002 by
considering them as outstanding, in terms of the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and on par with the appointment of similarly
placed persons viz., one Sri.Selvaraj and another. According to the applicants, they have secured more than 80% in the selection for appointment
to Artisan Grade-III, which has been re-designated as Technician Grade-III in the scale of pay of Rs.3050 - 4590 under 25% Serving Employees
Quota (SEQ). Persons, who secured more than 80% in their selection must rank superior to all others for appointment, regardless of their seniority
in the feeder cadre. However, while considering other similarly placed employees, their names were left out for the reasons unknown to them.
It appears that there are several litigations on the subject selection, where each party has been aggrieved by one direction or other issued by the
Tribunal in different Original Applications. However, it appears that finally the learned Tribunal by its order dated 29.08.2003 in O.A.No.1144 of
2002 (filed by Sri.R.Selvaraj) has held that the panel was prepared in violation of para-159 and para ? 204.8 of the Indian Railways Establishment
Manual and thus, the Original Application was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders therein. The said order came to be confirmed in other
Original Application in O.A.No.883 of 2012 filed by one S.Soundararajan. On the basis of the direction issued in the Original Applications, the
said R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan were promoted to the post of Skilled Artisans Grade-III. The appeals filed by the respondents herein on
R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan were stated to be pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as the
orders passed by the Tribunal in the afore stated Original Applications filed by R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan were confirmed by the Hon''ble
High Court. The claim of the applicants in Original Applications was sought to be resisted by the respondents that the promotion of other two
employees was made only subject to the outcome of the pending Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and no finality
had been reached in the matter. Moreover, even otherwise, the present applicants were not entitled to the relief as they were not similarly placed
like R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan. However, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the contention put forth by the respondents and allowed the
Original Applications on the basis of its reasoning as found in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned orders, which is extracted below:-
The above order having been issued only in June 2009, the same would take only prospective effect. However, We are concerned with the
vacancies that arose for the year 2000 as the trade test took place only in that year. As such, the above order may not be of that assistance. The
rule/regulation that held the fort for the relevant year alone would hold good. From that point of view, it would be seen that the matter is the same
as has been considered by this Bench in O.A.No.1144/2002 and thereafter, in O.A.No.883 of 2002 (which followed the other judgment in
O.A.1144 of 2002) and held that there shall be merit based selection, including the provisions of Rule 204.8 of IREM. The two judgments attained
finality and the applicants therein have been the beneficiaries. The applicants, who have secured more than 80% in the very same examination,
cannot be discriminated. We adopt this for more than one reason. Consistency is one of them, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can
lead to public confidence in our judicial system vide Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644. The second aspect is that the
decision indeed does not go against any provisions of the Railways, and it is the merit basis that had been held to be appropriate vide order dated
19.06.2009 referred to above. As such, the two orders could be stated to have confirmed the principle that in respect of selection of Technician
Grade III, merit would count in respect of those, who have secured above 80%. This does not act in contravention of the above extracted order
dated 19.06.2009 inasmuch as seniority is pushed to the back bench, when the marks secured is more than 80% and different modes of
recruitment are available. The only difference between 204.8 of the IREM and the above order of 19.06.2009 is that whereas seniority shall guide
the selection in respect of those, who have not secured 80% under the old practice, under the new order, it shall be thoroughly ignored.
In view of the above, the three OAs are allowed to the extent that cases of those, who have secured more than 80% in the relevant
examination should en-mass be held superior to others, who have secured less than 80%, but above 60%.
The learned Tribunal finally declared that the applicants would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher posts based on their
merit, without reference to seniority. The conclusion of the Tribunal was clearly on the basis of the undisputed fact that the applicants have secured
more than 80% in the second selection and therefore, they should held superior to others and regardless of the seniority, they ought to have been
promoted ahead of others, who have secured less than 80%, but above 60%. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original
Applications. As against the orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.
The learned counsel Sri.M.Vellaisamy, appearing for the petitioners herein, who are the respondents in the Original Applications, reinforced his
submissions which were put forth before the Tribunal. However, he was unable to demonstrate as to how the case of the present employees, the
applicants before the Tribunal, was different from the case of R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan. During the course of argument, it was also brought
to our knowledge that the SLP.Nos.17372 and 17373 of 2009 pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India had been dismissed by the
Hon''ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 03.12.2012. Consequently, the above said Special Leave Petitions have only confirmed the order
passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1144 of 2002 and O.A.No.883 of 2002 filed by R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan respectively. That being the
case, in the absence of any distinguishing factors regarding the claim of the present applicants, as that of R.Selvaraj and S.Soundararajan, any
contra view would be perse discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, Ms.Kavitha,
appearing for the first respondents in the above Writ Petitions/applicants in the Original Applications would contend that the Tribunal has passed
the order after consideration of all the issues and the same does not require interference of this Court.
We gave our anxious consideration to all the issues raised in the Writ Petition. Perused the pleadings and materials on record. We do not find
any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and the conclusion reached therein was well supported by the facts and also Rule position
and from the materials, We are not able to see how the case of the present applicants / private respondents herein would be different in order to
adopt a different approach to their claim. We do not see any scope for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, all the Writ
Petitions fail and stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.