Harish Chandra vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Both the Original Applications are being decided with the consent of learned counsels for the parties by a common order as the controversy involved in both the cases are similar and identical. OA No. 1124/2009 is being treated as a leading case.

These Original Applications have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:

The brief facts of the OA No. 1124/2009 are that applicant was posted on the post of Technician Grade –II in the grade pay of Rs. 3050-4590. Applicant was retired from service. Applicant was working as Tower Wagon Driver for which the department has issued competency certificate. Applicant was sent to Electrical Training Centre, Fazalganj, North Central Railway, Kanpur for training of initial course of Tower Wagon Driver. Copy of result of training dated 18.03.2005 is annexed with the OA. After successful training of Tower Wagon Driver, the certificate of competency No. TR-4 was issued by Divisional Electrical Engineer/TD/Jhansi on 28.07.2005. He has passed the course conducted by Zonal Training Institute, Northern Railway, Chandausi for S.R. -5 Traffic Refresher Course. He has also passed medical test conducted on 14.10.2004 and 11.07.2007. North Eastern Railway Lucknow Division has promoted to the Technicians for the post of Tower Wagon Drivers after completion of successful training vide letter dated 03.01.2006. In reference to above, applicant submitted representation dated 29.03.2009 along with application dated 14.09.2009 for giving him appointment to the post of Tower Wagon Driver. As no Tower Wagon Driver was posted at Talbehat Railway Station, the applicant performed the duty of Tower Wagon Driver from 2004 till his retirement. Respondents illegally and arbitrarily issued impugned notification dated 24.08.2009 whereby applications were invited for the post of Tower Wagon Drivers from the serving vehicle drivers posted at Jhansi Division. Ministry of Railways issued a guideline dated 23.1.2008 for filling up of the posts of Tower Wagon Drivers. Both orders are assailed in this OA.

The brief facts of the OA No. 1123/2009 are that applicant was posted on the post of Technician Grade –II in the grade pay of Rs. 5200-20200. Applicant was working as Tower Wagon Driver for which the department has issued competency certificate. Applicant was sent to Electrical Training Centre, Fazalganj, North Central Railway, Kanpur for training of initial course of Tower Wagon Driver. Copy of result of training dated 18.03.2005 is annexed with the OA. After successful training of Tower Wagon Driver, the certificate of competency No. TR-4 were issued by Divisional Electrical Engineer/TD/Jhansi on 25.07.2005. He has passed the course conducted by Zonal Training Institute, Northern Railway, Chandausi for S.R. -5 Traffic Refresher Course. He has also passed medical test conducted on 11.03.1995 and 07.07.2005. North Eastern Railway Lucknow Division has promoted to the Technicians for the post of Tower Wagon Drivers after completion of successful training vide letter dated 03.01.2006. In reference to above, applicant submitted representation dated 07.07.2009 along with application dated 10.09.2009 for giving him appointment to the post of Tower Wagon Driver. As no Tower Wagon Driver was posted at Talbehat Railway Station, the applicant performed the duty of Tower Wagon Driver from 2004 till his retirement. Respondents illegally and arbitrarily issued impugned notification dated 24.08.2009 whereby applications were invited for the post of Tower Wagon Drivers from the serving vehicle drivers posted at Jhansi Division. Ministry of Railways issued a guideline dated 23.1.2008 for filling up of the posts of Tower Wagon Drivers. Both orders are assailed in this OA.

We have heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in view of conditions mentioned in the impugned notification dated 24.08.2009, applicants have successfully completed 30 days training and they have already worked on the Tower Wagon Driver. He further contended that applicants possessed all the required qualifications for appointment them on the post of Tower Wagon Driver. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that Lucknow Division have promoted the existing Technician for the post of Tower Wagon Driver, but they have not been promoted on the post of Tower Wagon Driver, thus, respondents have denied the rightful claim of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon following case laws:-

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted in their counter affidavit that applicants are still working as Tower Wagon Driver but due to change of eligibility criteria for selection for the post of Tower Wagon Driver, the applicants might have faced the condition mentioned in the notification for the post of Tower Wagon Driver because as per the policy guideline, the candidature of only those candidate are to be considered who are having a heavy vehicle driving licence. It is admitted fact that the applicants do not possess heavy vehicle driving licence. Thus, applicants are not within any zone of consideration and as such the applicants have no legal enforceable right to claim appointment on the post of Tower Wagon Driver. It is also pleaded that changing of criteria is policy decision and it cannot be made subject to judicial scrutiny.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record carefully as well as written submission filed by the respondents.

We have analyzed the case laws relied upon by the applicants and we find that the aforesaid case laws are not helpful to the applicants’ case as these cases are related to payment of equal pay to the Tower Wagon Driver as has been paid to the Goods Drivers. In the instant case, issue involved is regarding regularization of the applicants as Tower Wagon Driver on the ground of their past services worked by them on stopgap arrangement as Tower Wagon Driver.

From the perusal of advertisement (Annexure A-7), it is evident that essential qualification for the posts of Tower Wagon Drivers are prescribed as under:-

Thus, if the applicants were not eligible for appointment on account of eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement, respondents have rightly denied appointment on the aforesaid ground. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents, who are the competent authority, can change the criteria at any time and changing the criteria is a policy decision, court cannot interfere in the same. It is also noteworthy here that applicants were working as Tower Wagon Driver on the basis of stopgap arrangement. For regularization on the aforesaid post, they have to fulfill the condition enumerated in the impugned order. Since no relaxation has been given in the notification regarding the past experience, thus, Tribunal cannot give specific direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants on the basis of past experience. If it is done, it will amount interference in the policy decision.

In view of the above, we are of the view that since applicants are not possessing heavy motor vehicle licence as has been prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement dated 24.08.2009, respondents have rightly refused the request of the applicants for appointment on the post of Tower Wagon Drivers. No case is made out in favour of the applicants for granting the reliefs claimed by them.

In the result the Original Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the judgment and order be also placed in the record of OA No. 1123/2009.