Ram Gopal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri A D Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved from impugned orders dated 01.07/08.2011, 14.09.2011 and 28.9.2011 by way of which respondents have cancelled the promotion of the applicant thereby reverting him to the lower post without issuing any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing to him. By way of the instant original application, applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to restore the assignment of the applicant as Trolley Man in which he was working earlier thereby granting him all the consequential benefits.

We have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed as track man on 24.05.2005 at North Eastern Railway Badaun. On 04.02.2010, respondents issued a notification for conducting the examination / trade test for promotion of Trolley Man. The applicant appeared in the said promotional examination and passed it. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Trolley Man. It is stated that the promotional examination was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions as has been laid down in the department manual and as such no irregularity or infirmity can be attributed to the whole process. However, to the utter shock of the applicant, respondent no. 3 passed the impugned orders dated 1.7/8.2011 and 14.9.2011 cancelling the promotion of the applicant thereby reverting him to the lower post without issuing any show cause notice or without affording him any opportunity of hearing and further issued a notification dated 28.09.2011 for filling up the said posts from which the applicant was reverted.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant was duly selected and promoted through departmentally prescribed procedure on the post of Trolley Man on 29.12.2010 and therefore respondents could not have cancelled the applicant’s promotion at least without providing him any opportunity of hearing or issuing a show cause notice. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in its judgment dated 09.11.2001 in the case CMWP No. 19781 of 1989 titled Dool Chand Yadav Vs. Chief Medical Officer Azamgarh held that promotion cannot be cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the employee. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case CMWP No. 44602 of 2001 titled Arun Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others submitting that in the said case, the Hon’ble Court explicitly held that once the petitioner was duly selected and promoted through prescribed procedure then he cannot be reverted.Thus, terming the conduct of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the instant original application is liable to be allowed and impugned orders are liable to be quashed thereby reinstating the applicant to his promoted post along with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant’s counsel and by way of the counter reply, he submits that the action taken by the respondents to revert the applicant to the post of Track Man is in absolute conformity with the relevant rules and provisions governing the subject matter. The very selection of the applicant to the promoted post was made without the approval of the competent authority of the respondents and thus the impugned orders are perfectly just, proper and in accordance with rules and hence deserve to be upheld by the Tribunal. Learned counsel goes on to further submit that a letter dated 11.12.2010 calling applications from the eligible employees of ‘C’ Section Engineer / Rail Path, Badaun were called for promotion to Trolley Man and in response thereto, applications from Shri Santosh Kumar, Shri Kapil and Sri Ram Gopal (applicant herein) were received. Of the three, Shri Ram Gopal was declared successful and vide order dated 29.12.2010 he was declared as suitable and accordingly was posted as Trolley Man. However, later it was found out that the entire selection process was conducted without the approval of the competent authority of the respondents and as such it was liable to be abrogated. Accordingly, the selection process was annulled and the applicant was reverted to his original post of Track Man. Learned counsel submits that once respondents found out that the selection process was illegal, the same was struck down as the respondents could not have gone ahead to let the applicant carry on working at his promoted post despite knowing that the promotion process was illegal as it was done without the approval of the competent authority. Hence, no illegality whatsoever can be attributed to the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the respondents goes on to further submit that the erring official / officer due to the negligence of which this entire process was carried out wrongfully has been given the minor punishment and a charge sheet has already been issued to him in this regard. Thus, in view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instant OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

We have heard rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the documents on record.

As the facts of the case have already been discussed above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The limited issue which is required to be adjudicated upon is whether the impugned orders are justified and whether the applicant has been subjected to any ill-treatment on account of a fault which was not done by him. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case and exclusively from the pleadings exchanged across the bar that the applicant applied for the promotional exam in accordance with the notification dated 11.12.2010 issued by the respondents for the same. After clearing all the stages of the said exam, he was given the charge of Trolley Man vide order dated 29.12.2010. This implies that the selection process was complete and the applicant was already appointed at his promoted post of Trolley Man. However, vide impugned orders dated 01.07/08.2011 and 14.09.2011, the applicant was reverted to his original post of Track Man. A simple understanding of the facts as have been mentioned above implies that it was unjust on the part of the respondents to have reverted the applicant to his original post especially after the entire selection process was complete and the applicant was already appointed to work at his promoted post. It would have been a different case had the respondents identified the discrepancy in the selection process while the process was still going on but that is not the case. The applicant applied for the promotional exam only in accordance with the notification issued by the respondents themselves. Even if it is accepted that the notification was covered with certain irregularities, applicant must not have been subjected to the fault done on the part of the respondents. Furthermore, the applicant herein was reverted without issuing any show cause notice or without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, which is completely bad and uncalled for in the eyes of law and is in gross violation to the principles of natural justice. Further, the case of the applicant is squarely covered with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in case Dool Chand Yadav (supra) and Arun Kumar Srivastava (supra) and thus the relief sought in the instant original application is liable to be acceded to.

Accordingly, in view of the above quoted deliberations, the instant original application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders dated 1.7/8.2011, 14.9.2011 and 28.9.2011 are hereby set aside. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to restore the assignment of the applicant as Trolley man in which the applicant was working before being reverted. In this regard, the applicant shall be paid all consequential benefits as accrued to him. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.