AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
“(a)To issue order/direction quashing the order dated 18.10.2016, contained in Annexure No. 1 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby the representation of the applicant has been rejected by denying him benefits at par with Sri Jagdish, who was empanelled for the post of AEE Group „B‟ against 25% (now 30%) LDCE on 12.08.1994 with all consequential benefits.
(b)To issue order/direction/command to the respondents to grant retrospective all service benefits including grant of Selection Grade having Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- in PB-4 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2012 as has been given in the case of one Sri Jagdish alongwith arrears of salary with interest @ 12% per annum by considering the placement of the applicant‟s name in the panel dated 12.08.1994, without reference to the order, contained in Annexure No. 1, impugned in the application.
(c)Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d)Allow the O.A. with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and Grounds raised in the application.”
The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Apprentice (Mechanic) vide order dated 29.05.1984 and after completing the training he was posted as Electric Supervisor/Chargeman vide order dated 23.10.1986 by the respondents. In response to notification dated 31.12.1991, the applicant applied for the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (AEE) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), but he was not called for the preliminary test held on 16.05.1993 and written test held on 30.04.1994 for want of adequate experience and the panel for AEE was declared on 12.08.1994. Subsequently, the applicant was allowed to appear in LDCE in the year 1997 and he was empanelled for AEE on 06.05.1997. The applicant represented for his placement in the 1994 panel at par with one Jagdish, but his representation dated 08.02.2013 was rejected by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 22.05.2013. He, then, approached this Tribunal in OA No. 226 of 2014 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 17.05.2016, permitted the applicant to move a detailed representation to be decided by the respondents on merit. The applicant submitted representation dated 07.06.2016 which was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2016. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
The applicant contends that he was not called for LDCE notified in 1991 for want of experience of 5 years on supervisory post even though two persons junior to him (Naresh Chandra Verma and Rustam Singh) were called. Secondly, he contends that as per Railway Board’s letter dated 25.04.1981, time spent by Railway servant on training immediately before appointment in service was to be counted as service for the purpose of appearing in the departmental examination, but the respondents acted in defiance of these instructions by not counting applicant’s training period of two years. Thirdly, he contends that he should be granted parity with Jagdish who was empanelled in 1994 on the basis of LDCE notified on 31.12.1991.
The respondents state that as per notification dated 31.12.1991, Group ‘C’ employees with five years of non-fortuitous service in the grade of Rs. 1,400 or higher were eligible for the LDCE as on the cut-off date of 20.03.1991. They contend that N C Verma and Rustam Singh were senior to the applicant and called for the LDCE, however they did not qualify LDCE and hence no prejudice was caused to the applicant. They also contend that Jagdish had completed five years of non-fortuitous service. They state that Railway Board’s letter dated 25.04.1981 only provides that period of training would count as service for the purpose of appearing in departmental examination and that the Railway Board, for the first time, clarified vide letter dated 18.01.1993 that the departmental examination would include LDCE for promotion to Group ‘B’ after issue of the notification for LDCE examination.
We have heard both the parties.
It is noted that the notification for filling up the posts of AEE was issued on 31.12.1991, preliminary test held on 16.05.1993, written test held on 30.04.1994 and the panel for AEE was declared on 12.08.1994. No material has been placed on record by the applicant that he represented against his non-inclusion among the eligible candidates for the LDCE during this period. It was only after the applicant was empanelled through subsequent LDCE vide letter dated 06.05.1997 that he represented for placement in the panel declared on 12.08.1994 through the earlier LDCE.
It is well settled that the candidates who fail to raise any objection to a selection process are estopped from turning around and challenging the selection after the selection process is over. The applicant should have challenged his exclusion from the LDCE notified on 31.12.1991 before holding of the preliminary test on 16.05.1993. The legal right for consideration on the matter of eligibility that might have accrued to the applicant had he represented against not having been called for LDCE notified on 31.12.1991 at the appropriate stage of the LDCE’s process cannot be resurrected after conclusion of the LDCE’s process and declaration of the panel, in our view. Consequently, it is held that the applicant is not entitled the benefit of the LDCE notified on 31.12.1991 and he is also not entitled to parity with Jagdish who was empanelled on the basis of the LDCE notified on 31.12.1991.
In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.