Rohit And Ors vs General Manager, Northern Railway And Ors

Raj Vir Sharma, J

The applicants have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

"8.1 That the Hon"ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders.

8.2 That the Hon"ble Tribunal may also be graciously pleased to direct the respondents to post the applicants as Carriage Cleaner in the Mechanical Engineering department for which post they had selected and for which post their option had been accepted by the Headquarters Office and give all consequential benefits.

8.3 That the Hon"ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.4 That the Hon"ble Tribunal may further be graciously pleased to grant costs against the respondents and in favour of the applicants."

Resisting the O.A. the respondents have filed a counter reply.

The applicants  have also filed a rejoinder reply refuting the stand taken by the respondents in their counter reply.

We  have  carefully perused  the  record  and  have  heard  Ms.Meenu Mainee,  learned  counsel appearing  for  the  applicants,  and  Mr.A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue  and are  not  disputed by  either  side,  are  that in  pursuance  of  the Employment Notification  No.220E/Open  Mkt/RRC/2012  dated 30.8.2012,  the recruitment process to fill 7368 vacancies  in Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.1800/- Group "D" posts (including the posts of  Trackman in the Civil Engineering Department and of Carriage Cleaner in the Mechanical Department) was initiated by the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway. In response thereto, the applicants applied and offered their candidatures. They appeared in the written examination. Having qualified the written examination, they were called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET). After conducting the PET, the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway prepared a panel and called upon the selected candidates (including the applicants) to exercise their options for appointment to different categories of posts advertised in the employment notification. All the applicants opted for appointment to the post of Carriage Cleaner in the Mechanical Engineering Department. Thereafter, the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway conducted the medial examination of the applicants. On medical examination, the applicants were found medically fit for the post of Carriage Cleaner. Accordingly, the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway allotted the applicants and others to the Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway (respondent no.3) for appointing them as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department of the Moradabad Division. Instead of appointing the applicants as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department of the Moradabad Division, respondent no.3, i.e., the Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad Division, Northern Railway, issued orders in August 2014 appointing the applicants as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, with the direction to report for duty in September 2014. While protesting against the orders appointing them as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, all the applicants reported for duty as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department and made representations in September 2014 and February 2015 requesting the respondents to appoint them as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department for which they were selected. There being no response, the applicants filed the present O.A. on 19.4.2016 seeking the reliefs as aforesaid.

In  the  above  backdrop,  the  applicants have  contended  that  the respondents acted arbitrarily and illegally in appointing them as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, though they were duly selected and allotted to the Moradabad Division for their appointment as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department. It has also been contended by the applicants that no consent was ever obtained from them by respondent no.3 before issuing orders appointing them as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, instead of Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department of the Moradabad Division.

On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondents that vacancies in the post of Trackman in the Civil Engineering Department were lying for several years. With the approval of the competent authority, i.e., Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad Division, all the candidates allotted to the Moradabad Division were appointed as Trackmen as per the requirement of the Railway administration and for smooth running of trains. Accordingly, the applicants were appointed as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in appointing the applicants as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department.

After having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we have found no substance in the contentions of the respondents.

It is not the case of the respondents that no selected candidates were allotted to the Moradabad Division for appointment against the vacancies in the post of Trackman in the Civil Engineering Department. It is also not the case of the respondents that at the relevant point of time, vacancies in the post of Carriage Cleaner in the Mechanical Department of Moradabad Division were not available. The entire recruitment process and allotment of the selected candidates to different Divisions of the Northern Railway pursuant to Employment Notification No.220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 dated 30.8.2012(ibid) were done by the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway on the basis of the vacancies in various posts, including the posts of Carriage Cleaner in the Mechanical Department and Trackman in the Civil Engineering Department, reported by different Divisions to the Railway Recruitment Cell of the Northern Railway. The respondents have also not produced before this Tribunal any material showing that all the selected candidates for different categories of Group D posts, who were allotted to Moradabad Division, were appointed as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that a number of vacancies were lying in the post of Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department of Moradabad Division for long years and all the selected candidates allotted to Moradabad Division were appointed as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, besides being unsubstantiated, is untenable. Even if it is assumed for a moment that vacancies in the post of Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department of Moradabad Division were lying for long and were, therefore, required to be filled by appointing the applicants and others allotted for appointment as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department, the respondents ought to have intimated such situation to the applicants and others, and obtained their consent before issuing orders appointing them as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department. In the absence of such an opportunity being given to the applicants, the respondents cannot be said to be justified in appointing the applicants as Trackmen in the Civil Engineering Department, instead of Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department. Furthermore, the respondents have not placed before this Tribunal any rule or instructions issued by the Railway Board in support of their decision.

In the light of what has been discussed above, we direct the respondents to take appropriate decision appointing the applicants as Carriage Cleaners in the Mechanical Department of Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway with all consequential benefits pursuant to the Employment Notification No.220E/Open Mkt/RRC/2012 dated 30.8.2012(ibid) within a period of six months from today.

Resultantly, the O.A. is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

All the pending MAs are accordingly disposed of. No costs.