Deoki Prasad vs Union of India And Ors

Bharat Bhushan, J

This Original Application (OA) has been filed for the following relief(s):-

(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 passed by respondent No.2 (Divisional Rail Manager (Commercial) North Eastern Railway, Varanasi) (Annexure No.1 to this application).

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to let the applicant's join on the post of gang man in view of the order dated 4.6.2008.

(iii) To issue any other writ order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the costs to the applicant."

The applicant claims that originally Badge No.4 of Railway porter was with Late Ganesh. His wife sold the license (Badge No.4) to one Harihar, who transferred this license to applicant in the year 1995 and since then applicant has been discharging duties of Coolie without any complaint.

Subsequently, Indian Railway floated a scheme for making permanent appointment of licensed porters (Coolie) to the post of Trackman. Applicant and some other porters appeared in the selection process. His medical examination was also conducted. Applicant claims that he was declared successful in the selection process and his name finds place at Sl. No.26 in the list of selected candidates.

Applicant, further, claims that other selected porters were permitted to join but for some unknown reason the applicant was not allowed to join the post of Trackman.

Applicant claims suddenly without any notice, hearing and inquiry his porter license (Badge No.4) was cancelled on 13.10.2008.

Primarily this cancellation order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure A-1) is under challenge in this OA along with second prayer seeking direction for appointment as a Trackman.

The respondents have filed counter reply saying that the porter license (Badge No.4) was initially allotted to one Ganesh. Ganesh expired and his wife Smt. Laxmina Devi illegally sold this license to one Harihar, who again illegally transferred the porter license (Badge No.4) to applicant Deoki Prasad in the month of January, 2001.

The respondents have claimed that applicant sought appointment as Trackman on the basis of this false and unauthorized porter license. However, Laxmina Devi w/o late Ganesh, the original holder of porter license (Badge No.4) made a complaint to the concerned Divisional Office of Railway alleging that applicant is wrongly and fraudulently using the porter license without her consent and that proper action should be taken against the applicant.

The Department, therefore, was constrained to make inquiry. Authorities found irregular and fraudulent activities of applicant, therefore, his porter license (Badge No.4) was cancelled.

Heard Shri A.D. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents.

In this OA a strange and surprising prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by respondent no.2, Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) North Eastern Railway, Varanasi whereby the porter license (Badge no.4) was cancelled. If, this prayer is granted, the exact result would be to restore the porter license to applicant Deoki Prasad, which in our opinion is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

This Tribunal has been established for providing speedy and inexpensive relief for a person in the services under the Union by adjudicating and matters of their complaint and grievances on recruitment and condition of service. The Act itself delineate the category of services for which it can exercise jurisdiction. Porters of the Railway Station and issuance of porter license are not certainly within the adjudicatory jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

This OA can be dismissed merely on this ground.

In any case, the applicant is not relation of original holder of porter license. Porter license cannot be traded. The Railways have made certain rules and regulations and they must be followed. Hon'ble Patna High Court has already ruled in this matter in the judgment delivered on 12.05.2016 in Madan Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors (Civil Writ (jurisdiction) case no.7510 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant has insisted that he has sought another relief in this case, whereby a direction has been sought for allowing the applicant to join on the post of Trackman in view of order dated 04.06.2008.

We are afraid, even this request is legally barred by Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 which entails that each Original Application shall be based upon a single cause of action. Applicant can only seek more than one relief provided they are consequential to one another. In this case, the main prayer is for restoration of porter license (Badge No.4) to the applicant. Second prayer is not directly consequential to relief No.1. Therefore, second prayer cannot be granted in view of Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 but to avoid multiplicity of litigation, we are constrained to take up the question of second prayer on merit as this case has been pending since last 10 years.

Admittedly, Railway floated the scheme of appointment of porters to the permanent post of Trackman. Obviously, only porters could have applied and sought appointment. Applicant admittedly is not the licensed porter of respondents. He applied and sought appointment on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. May be he got success in this selection process but his success is based on misrepresentation and fraud and it is well established law that "Fraud vitiates and voids all acts". Even the judicial decree obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation is deemed to be nullity. In any case, mere success in selection process does not give any indefeasible right for appointment to any post especially in the light of allegation of fraud and misrepresentation.

We are convinced that there was no mala fide intention on behalf of respondents and there was no arbitrariness in this action. Fact of the matter is that applicant is trying to seek appointment on the basis of fraudulent capacity. Applicant was not entitled to seek appointment as a Trackman.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the OA is devoid of merit. Both prayers made by applicant are denied. Therefore, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.