Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India Through The General Manager And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ application questions the legality of the order dated 21st of August, 2018 as well as the order dated 3rd of October, 2018 whereby the original

application of the petitioner and the review application were both rejected.

The petitioner raised a claim of appointment on the basis of certain recommendation, firstly, as a Bungalow Peon and under the revised format as a

Telephone Attendant-cum-Dak Khalasi. Such appointment, according to the petitioner, was available on workcharged basis on the recommendations

of the officer concerned. Learned counsel submits that after completing all the formalities, the recommendations were forwarded to the competent

authority, but no appointment was made and, therefore, the original application was filed praying for a direction to accept the recommendations in

favour of the petitioner.

It appears that the request of the petitioner for appointment was turned down on the ground that the recommending authority, namely the officer

concerned, was to retire on 28th of February, 2015 and, therefore, when the matter was being considered, due to the proximity of the retirement of the

officer, the claim was being rejected. The petitioner also approached the Railway Board and the Railway Board also intimated the petitioner that the

competent authority has not approved the appointment and, therefore, no further action was desirable.

All these communications have been brought on record through the written statement of the Railways before the Tribunal.

Unfortunately, we find that the petitioner does not appear to have raised a challenge for quashing or setting aside of the said orders rejecting the

proposal. No such relief was claimed and consequently, once the Tribunal has finally dismissed the application upholding the said decisions, then, in the

absence of any challenge raised to the said decisions of the competent authority of the Railways, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

The entire litigation was, therefore, conducted in a misdirected way. The writ petition fails and is accordingly rejected.

The dismissal of these proceedings would not be an impediment in the passage of the petitioner to claim any other benefit to which he may be entitled

in accordance with law.