AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant, seeking following reliefs:
“(a)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.11.2013 (Annexure No. 1 to the Compilation No. I) passed by the respondent no. 3 upholding the appointment of applicant nos. 1 & 2 ass Trackman in place of Helper II Mech. C & W in SRDPO and applicant no. 3 as Safaiwala in place of Helper II Mech. D.S.L.
(b)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the applicants no. 1 & 2 on the post of Helper-II Mech. C & W and the applicant no. 3 on the post of Helper-II Mech. D.S.L as per the letter dated 25.3.2013 issued by the opposite party no. 2 and permit and allow the applicants to discharge their duties on the post aforesaid respectively and to pay the salary and other emoluments to the applicants month to month as and when it becomes due and modify the appointment letter dated 6.7.2013 in terms of the letter dated 25.3.2013.
(c)to issue any other, order or direction of the suitable nature which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of Justice.
(d)to award cost of the present Original Application in favour of the applicant.”
Before proceeding, it is pertinent to state that the learned counsel for the applicant submitted on 22.07.2026 that he has got instructions with respect to applicant-1 only and is not pressing the instant case with respect to applicant 2 & 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it was noted that the instant Original Application will be treated dismissed as not pressed with respect to applicants 2 & 3 and the order was reserved with respect to applicant-1. Accordingly, the case is considered in respect of applicant-1 only in the following paragraphs.
The brief facts as stated by the applicant are that the respondents floated an advertisement on 19.12.2010 for the posts of grade pay Rs. 1800/- including Helper-II, Trackman Engg. Etc. In response, the applicant applied for several posts including that of Helper-II Mechanical C&W. He appeared in the written examination held on 13.05.2012 and was declared successful. Thereafter, he successfully cleared the physical examination, document verification and medical examination and was found fit for service. On 25.03.2013, the Railway authorities issued a letter proposing his appointment as Helper-II Mechanical C&W at Agra. However, contrary to the said letter, the appointment letter dated 06.07.2013 directed him to join as Trackman (Engineering).
Thereafter, the applicant immediately raised an objection and requested the authorities to appoint him to the post of Helper-II Mechanical C&W for which he had applied and has been selected. He also submitted representations on 25.07.2013 and 05.08.2013, but no relief was granted.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1081/2013, which was disposed of on 04.09.2013 with a direction to the respondents to decide his representation. In compliance, the respondents passed the order dated 07.11.2013, maintaining his appointment as Trackman. It is the contention of the applicant that that the respondents have changed his post from Helper-II Mechanical C&W to Trackman at the stage of joining, despite him having been selected for appointment to the post of Helper-II Mechanical C&W. Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing instant Original Application challenging the order dated 07.11.2013.
The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the Railway Recruitment Cell addressed a letter to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Agra on 14.03.2013 annexing a list of 255 candidates based on their performance in the recruitment process. Thereafter, a letter dated 09.04.2013 was sent by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Agra addressed to Railway Recruitment Cell stating therein that the panel given to the Division was not as per existing vacancy position and the same was returned with a request to allot the candidates as per existing vacancies. In response, on 11.04.2013 it was informed by the RRC that the notification on group ‘D’ post was made on the basis of vacancies as on 30.09.2010 as intimated by the Division and was further requested to operate the panel as per exigency of vacancies available in the Division under the power of DRM. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.05.2013 addressed to DRMs Allahabad, Jhansi & Agra, the General Manager accorded approval and authorized the DRMs to utilize the panel in accordance with vacancies which existed at that time. Accordingly, the applicant was offered appointment as Trackman, which was also a Group-D post carrying the same Grade Pay of Rs 1,800/-.
The respondents have also relied upon the conditions of the recruitment notification, such as 1(4) which clearly mentioned that the candidates were advised to given option in order to priority for categories, place of PET and posting, however, this would not confer any vested right to a particular post, department or place of posting. Further, in Item No. 2-II(i) it is mentioned that the candidates selected and eligible with all respect can be appointed at any place within the geographical jurisdiction of NCR. This recruitment will be based on the availability of posts at the time of actual appointment. In Item No. 15 (II) it was mentioned that the posting of selected candidates may be made as per requirement of the Administration at the appropriate time. No Particular place or department or division of posting can be assured or assumed. The applicant appeared before the respondents on 22.07.2013 and received the appointment letter but did not join the post thereafter. Therefore, the respondents have not performed any illegality or infirmity in the case of the applicant.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant reiterating the averments.
Submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard and records have been gone through.
It is noted from the records that the applicant applied for the post of Helper-II Mechanical C&W, along with other posts, against the notification dated 19.12.2010 issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad, for recruitment to various erstwhile Group 'D' posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-. The applicant participated in the selection process and was declared successful. He thereafter cleared the Physical Efficiency Test, document verification and medical examination and was found fit for appointment. Subsequently, vide letter dated 25.03.2013, the applicant was proposed for appointment as Helper-II Mechanical C&W at SRDPO, Agra. However, at the stage of actual appointment, he was offered the post of Trackman.
The applicant has filed his representation before the respondents, which was decided on 07.11.2013 in compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 04.09.2013 passed in O.A. No. 1081/2013. The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.11.2013 is quoted as under:
"...1) साप्ताहिक रोजगार समाचार (29 जनवरी-4 फरवरी 2011 में रेलवे भर्ती प्रकोष्ठ, उत्तर मध्य रेलवे इलाहाबाद के द्वारा प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या आर.आर.सी./उ.म.रे./1/2010 दिनांक 19-12-2010 के विस्तृत अधिसूचना के पैरा 4 में स्पष्ट उल्लेख किया गया है कि: 'उम्मीदवारों को परामर्श दिया जाता है कि वे आवेदन के प्रारूप के मद 11 एवं 12 में अपनी प्राथमिकता क्रम में कोटि तथा शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षण/पद स्थापना स्थान का विकल्प दें। इसके बावजूद प्रशासन को उम्मीदवारों को कोई भी विभाग/कोटि/स्थान आबंटित करने का अधिकार सुरक्षित होगा।' आवेदन-पत्र के प्रारूप के मद 11 में भी स्पष्ट नोट दिया गया है कि विकल्प के आधार पर कोटि/मंडल का आवंटन रेल प्रशासन पर बाध्यकारी नहीं होगा। उक्त आवेदकगणों में से ... श्री जितेन्द्र कुमार ने वरीयता क्रम 04 पर ट्रेकमैन की रिक्ति/पद के लिये विकल्प प्रस्तुत किया है।
2)उपरोक्त अधिसूचना के संदर्भ में रेलवे भर्ती प्रकोष्ठ इलाहाबाद के पत्र सं० RRC/ALD/Recruitment/Penal/EN1/2010 dt-14-03-2013 के द्वारा आगरा मंडल को 255 अभ्यर्थियों के पैनल प्राप्त हुए।
3)आगरा मंडल में प्राप्त पैनल के अनुसार वर्तमान में यांत्रिक (सी एण्ड डब्ल्यू), यांत्रिक (डीजल) एवं वाणिज्य विभाग में रिक्तियों उपलब्ध नहीं होने के कारण इस कार्यालय के पत्र सं० P/Agra/EG/Panel/13 dated-09-04-2013 के द्वारा रेलवे भर्ती प्रकोष्ठ इलाहाबाद को वस्तु स्थिति से अवगत कराया गया था कि वर्तमान में उपलब्ध रिक्तियों के अनुरूप अभ्यर्थी आबंटित किये जायें।
4)इस कार्यालय के उपरोक्त संदर्भित पत्र के संदर्भ में रेलवे भर्ती प्रकोष्ठ इलाहाबाद के द्वारा पत्र सं० 797-E/RRC/NCR dated 11-04-2013 के अन्तर्गत निर्देशित किया कि उपरोक्त पैनल को मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक प्रदत्त की गयी शक्ति के अधीन आगरा मंडल में उपलब्ध रिक्तियों के अनुसार पैनल को परिचालित किया जाय।
5)आगरा मंडल में उपलब्ध रिक्तियों, प्राप्त पैनल के अनुसार न होने के कारण उत्तर मध्य रेलवे जॉन के अन्य मंडल के संदर्भ में प्रधान कार्यालय, इलाहाबाद के पत्र सं० 797-E/Panel Distribution/Gr'D/20076 दिनांक 17-5-2013 के द्वारा महाप्रबन्धक महोदय ने निर्देशित किया कि मंडल में रिक्तियों की कठिनाई को देखते हुए हुए वर्तमान में उपलब्ध रिक्तियों के विरुद्ध पैनल को परिचालित किया जाय और आवश्यक हो तो उच्च श्रेणी में पुनः चिकित्सा परीक्षण कराया जाय और संरक्षा कोटि की रिक्तियों के विरुद्ध प्राप्त पैनल के अभ्यर्थियों को पोस्ट किया जाय साथ ही यह भी निर्देशित किया की जहाँ तक सम्भव हो संरक्षा कोटि की रिक्तियों के विरुद्ध अभ्यर्थियों को पोस्ट किया जाय।
6)मंडल में प्राप्त पैनल के अनुसार रिक्तियों की कठिनाई को देखते हुए महाप्रबन्धक महोदय के पत्र दिनांक 17-5-2013 के निर्देशानुसार प्राप्त पैनल को वर्तमान उपलब्ध रिक्तियों के अनुसार प्रचालित करने के लिए मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक महोदय को अनुमोदनार्थ प्रस्तुत किया गया। मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक महोदय ने प्रदत्त शक्ति के अन्तर्गत रोस्टर पोइंट के अनुसार पुनः केटेगरी आबंटन पर अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया और तदोपरान्त ही प्राप्त पैनल को परिचालित किया गया है। प्राप्त 255 अभ्यर्थियों के पैनल में से 224 अभ्यर्थी पदभार ग्रहण कर चुके हैं और 20 उपस्थित नहीं हुए तथा 11 अभ्यर्थी चिकित्सा श्रेणी के अनुसार अन्य केटेगरी आबंटन हेतु प्रतीक्षारत हैं। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर प्राप्त पैनल का परिचालन एवं पदस्थापना सम्बन्धी सभी कार्य उपरोक्त पैरा 1 में वर्णित निर्देश एवं महाप्रबन्धक महोदय के निर्देशानुसार केटेगरी आबंटन हेतु मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक को प्रदत्त शक्ति के अन्तर्गत संरक्षा कोटि की रिक्तियों को भरने की प्राथमिकता एवं रोस्टर पोइंट के अनुसार मंडल रेल प्रबन्धक के अनुमोदन से नियमानुसार किया गया है। तदनुसार हैल्पर 11 मैके. (कै० वै०) में रिक्ति न होने के कारण ही वादीगणों द्वारा वांछित कोटि में नियुक्ति नहीं दी गयी है। उक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर वादीगणों के प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 06-08-2013 का निस्तारण किया जाता है। कृपया पावती दें। सहायक कार्मिक अधिकारी। उत्तर मध्य रेलवे, आगरा।
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant terms and conditions of the recruitment notification, which were accepted by the applicant at the time of submitting his application and have also been specifically relied upon and emphasized by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The relevant portion of the notification is quoted as under:
"1(4) Candidates are advised to give their option in order of priority for categories, place of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and posting in column 11 & 12 of the application form. However this would not confer any right on the candidates and Railway Administration reserves all the rights to allot any of the department/category/place of posting to the successful candidates.
II...Note: ... 2. Number of vacancies indicated above are liable to be changed. II-(1) Candidates selected and eligible with all respect can be appointment at any place within the geographical jurisdiction of NCR. This recruitment will be based on the availability of posts at the time of actual appointment
XV. IMPORTANT...
2)Posting of the selected candidates may be made as per requirement of the administration at the appropriate time. No particular Place or Department or Division of posting can be assured or assumed. …..
4)The decision of Dy. CPO/RRC/NCR in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of the applications, issued of free rail passes, penalty for false information, mode of selection, conduct of examination(s), allotment of examination center, allotment of post/place to selected candidates and all other matters related with enquiry of recruitment process will be final and binding on the candidates, and no enquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this connection. Candidates will be purely as per merit”
It is evident from the recruitment notification that the option or preference exercised by a candidate for a particular post/category did not confer any vested right upon him for appointment to such post. The notification specifically provided that appointment would be made subject to the availability of posts at the time of actual appointment and according to the requirements of the Administration.
In the present case, the respondents have explained that the vacancies for the post of Helper-II Mechanical C&W were not available at the relevant time when the panel was operated. The General Manager, North Central Railway, vide directions dated 17.05.2013, had authorized the Divisional Railway Managers to utilize the panel in accordance with the vacancies existing at that time and the administrative exigencies. Accordingly, the respondents acted in a bona- fide manner and offered the applicant appointment as Trackman, which was also a Group ‘D’ post carrying the same Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/-.
The applicant, having participated in the selection process and having accepted the terms and conditions contained in the recruitment notification, cannot subsequently claim a vested right to appointment against the particular post for which he had exercised his preference. The preference given by him was subject to the express conditions of the notification and did not create any enforceable right to insist upon appointment as Helper-II Mechanical C&W, particularly when the respondents have demonstrated that the post was not available at the time of actual appointment.
It is further noted that the applicant appeared before the respondents on 22.07.2013 and was issued the appointment letter, but he did not join the post of Trackman thereafter. The action of the respondents in offering him an alternative post, in exercise of the powers delegated by the competent authority and in accordance with the prevailing vacancy position, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference of this Tribunal is warranted in the in the instant case as the respondents have acted within the powers duly delegated to them and in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the recruitment. No illegality or infirmity is, therefore, found in the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 warranting interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
Interim Order, if any, stands discharged. All the related MAs stand disposed of.