Mohammad Rashid vs The Union of India

Challenging the order dated 25.2.2003 Annexure P/1 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 470/1998, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Petitioners were departmental candidates who had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Permanent Way Mistries. A notification for the selection was issued on 24.6.1997 and based on the selection process conducted for filling up of 50% post through departmental quota, petitioners were empanelled for appointment. It seems that when selection process was undertaken and panel was prepared, certain proceedings were initiated before the Central Administrative Tribunal by one Lallu Prasad and others in O.A. No. 304/1998 wherein the selection process was challenged. When the Central Administrative Tribunal considered this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal''s Act, 1985 it was found that a representation filed by Lallu Prasad and others challenging the selection was pending, therefore vide order dated 27.4.98 Annexure P/5, the Tribunal directed the Divisional Railway Manager to look into the representation and decide it. The Divisional Railway Manager went through the representation and found certain irregularity in the process of selection and therefore, cancelled the selection. As a consequence thereof, the present application was filed by the applicants, who were the empanelled candidates, before the Tribunal and the Tribunal having dismissed the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner No. 3 referred to the statutory rules and tried to emphasize that the Divisional Railway Manager has no authority to cancel the panel prepared. It is contended that the Divisional Railway Manager by usurping the power cancelled the panel contrary to rules, it is said that entire action is unsustainable. That apart, he points out that procedural irregularity cannot be a ground for cancellation of panel.

Shri A. P. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and argued that out of six applicants only five have filed this writ petition and out of these four petitioners have retired on attaining the age of superannuation and one petitioner has expired and therefore, no relief can be granted now in these changed circumstances. He referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 5 and argues that Divisional Railway Manager decided the representation in accordance to the directions issued by the Tribunal in the case Lallu Prasad and others (supra) and as the Divisional Railway Manager has exercised the powers on the basis of directions issued by the Tribunal, there is no illegality in the same.

We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the main ground of challenge in the writ petition is to the jurisdiction of the Divisional Railway Manager in cancelling the Panel. Admittedly, the Divisional Railway Manager exercised jurisdiction in the matter only because of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 304/1998 on 23.4.1998. The Tribunal having directed the Divisional Railway Manager to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation and if the Divisional Railway Manager in pursuance to that order acted, we see no reason to hold the power exercised by the Divisional Railway Manager as unsustainable.

The petitioners if they had any grievance with regard to this direction issued by the Tribunal in the year 1998, should have challenged the order of the Tribunal or sought for its review. This was not done. That being so, now we see no reason to interfere in the matter on the grounds canvassed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Divisional Railway Manager.

That apart, we find that the selection process was conducted in the year 1997 and out of the five petitioners, one petitioner has expired and four have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Even if the petition is allowed, this Court has to remand back the matter to the competent authority for conducting the process of selection again and thereafter, taking action. Once the employees have retired, the selection process cannot be undertaken now with regard to a retired person.

Keeping in view all these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere into the matter exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, finding no ground, the petition is dismissed.