Union of India and Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and Another

Hemant Gupta, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal'') on 18.12.2012, whereby an Original Application filed by respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the applicant'') was allowed in terms of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as S.K.M. Haider Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Subsequent application for review filed by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2013. Such order is also subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The applicant was working as Constable in Railway Protection Force and was declared unfit in B-I & B-II category, however, declared fit in C-I & C-II category. Since no post for C-I & C-II category was available in Railway Protection Force, the name of the applicant was recommended to the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railways, Ambala Cantt for alternative job. Thereafter, the applicant was appointed as Return Courier in the year 1991 and later appointed as Luggage Porter. On 25.09.2002, the applications were invited for selection of Ticket Collector, Grade Rs. 3050-4590 (RSRP) Against 33 1/3% ranker''s quota from the Class IV non-technical staff of Traffic & Commercial Departments. The applicant appeared for the test and was placed at Sr. No. 5, whereas one S.K.M. Haider was placed at Sr. No. 48. The applicant and S.K.M. Haider appeared for viva voce on 25.02.2003 and were placed at Sr. Nos. 1 & 25 respectively on the panel for the post of Ticket Collector. In pursuance of the panel so finalized, the applicant was directed to appear before the Medical Authorities for medical examination, but was declared unfit in B-I & B-II category relying upon medical examination earlier conducted in the year 1990, when the applicant was posted in Railway Protection Force as Constable.

S.K.M. Haider, whose name appears at Sr. No. 25 in the panel, in which the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 1, challenged his rejection on the basis of medical examination in B-I & B-II category. The said petition was allowed by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above.

The applicant claimed the same benefit, as was granted to S.K.M. Haider after the judgment of the Supreme Court, but the same was declined for the reason that the benefit of such judgment cannot be given to the applicant since the applicant was not party in the said case.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.M. Haider''s case (supra) does not lay down any principle of law, as it is a judgment passed by the Supreme Court to do the substantial justice and, thus, the applicant cannot claim appointment to the post of Ticket Collector. It is contended that a candidate cannot be appointed/promoted against the Rules. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court judgment reported as Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. S.K. Saigal and Others, .

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find that the present petition is not tenable. S.K.M. Haider, the appellant before the Supreme Court, was junior to the applicant in the merit list including in the written examination as well as the viva voce. The applicant and S.K.M. Haider are similarly situated being part of the same selection process. S.K.M. Haider was declined appointment having been declared medically unfit in Class B-II under Para 510 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM), as the present applicant. Considering Para 510 in Chapter V of IRMM, the Supreme Court observed that the groups i.e. ''A'', ''B'' & ''C are for the purpose of vision tests of non-Gazetted Railway services. Such groups are said to have been made ''in the interest of public safety''; ''in the interest of the employee himself or his fellow workers or both'' and ''in the interest of administration only''. The post of Ticket Collector was categorized in Class B-2 under the head ''station supervisory and artisan staff. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under:

Though post of Ticket Collector is categorised in Annexure IV in Class B-2 but while doing so the underlying object of division of staff into three broad groups A, B and C for vision tests of candidates and of serving Railway employees in non-Gazetted Railway services seems to have been overlooked. Broadly, Class B-2 covers a certain staff in workshops and engine rooms engaged on duties. It has been so done because failing eyesight may endanger themselves or other employees from moving parts of the machinery and crane drivers on open line. This is in consonance with the objective of group B viz; `in the interest of the employee himself or his fellow workers or both''. Insofar as Ticket Collectors are concerned, vision tests for them are not required ''in the interest of employee himself or his fellow workers or both'' as contemplated in group B but it is required in the interest of administration only - the objective contemplated in group C. In this view of the matter, there seems to be no rational basis, in relation to the object set out in Para 510 of IRMM, of categorizing the post of Ticket Collectors under Class B-2 in Annexure IV. However, it is for the respondents to have a fresh look insofar as categorisation of posts pertaining to non-Gazetted Railway services in Annexure IV is concerned. Suffice it to say that categorization of posts for the purpose of vision tests must have nexus with the object set out in Para 510. Having regard to the objective of division of groups/classes for the purpose of vision tests under Para 510 of IRMM, the post of Ticket Collectors can not be held to be covered by Class B-2 but rather will be covered by Class C-2. Any inconsistency in categorization of Railway posts in Annexure IV, in our view, must not operate against the appellant in getting promotion to the post of Ticket Collector.

We hold, as it must be held, that the appellant could not have been denied promotion to the post of Ticket Collector as he had passed written test and viva voce and was provisionally selected for the post of Ticket Collector and had been declared medically fit in Class C-2.

We find that the argument that judgment in S.K.M. Haider''s case (supra) does not lay down any principle of law is not correct. Though the case in question is of one employee, but the denial of promotion to the post of Ticket Collector on the basis of medical fitness in Class C-II was found to be not permissible. The very basis of categorization was found to be not tenable. The same are the reasons for declining promotion to the applicant. There is no reason not to extend the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.M. Haider''s case (supra), when not only he was junior to the applicant, but identically placed in all respects. We find that denial of promotion to the applicant, in these circumstances, is wholly unjustified.

The ratio of S.K. Saigal''s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not in dispute. It is well settled that no mandamus can be issued, which would be contrary to the Acts and the Rules, but where the classification has been found to be unjustified in respect of ''A'' official of the same selection process, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the applicant. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, thus, dismissed. Since the issue, which has attained finality has been resisted before the learned Tribunal and before this Court by way of present petition, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.