AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The post of Permanent Way Inspector (P.W.1), Grade-III in the railways has three Grades viz., Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I. A person who is appointed as P.W. 1 is eligible to the post of Grade-II on completion of a particular length of service and on fulfilling certain conditions. So for as Grade-I is concerned, the appointment is under two separate categories. 20% of the vacancies are filled through direct recruitment, whereas 80% of the vacancies are filled by promotion from Grade-II P.W. 1. Within the 20% of posts earmarked for direct recruitment, 10% i.e., half of them are earmarked for graduate P.W. 1, Grade-II subject to their holding the prescribed educational qualification and performance in the written test. The respondent was appointed as P.W. 1 Grade-III on 08.08.1979 and he was promoted to Grade-II on 17.02.1986. Since he holds the graduate degree in Engineering, he opted to compete for the 10% of vacancies of Grade-I, through direct recruitment. Notification for this purpose was issued on 03.03.1992 and a written test was conducted on 03.07.1992. Results were declared on 01.10.1992 and in the panel of four candidates, published on 12.11.1992, he was included.
At a time when the order of appointment on the basis of panel was about to be issued, one of the candidates came to be appointed as an Assistant Engineer and two others were promoted to Grade-I under the restructured establishment. The respondent alone remained in the panel.
The candidates selected under direct recruitment are required to undergo training for a period of one year. However, since the respondent was also working as P.W. 1 Grade-II, he submitted a representation with a request to exempt him from training. There was delay in consideration of the representation and ultimately the period of training for him was reduced to 3 months. Even that condensed training was imparted only in the year 1994, and he completed the same on 20.02.1994. Orders of posting to Grade-I were issued to him on 01.06.1994.
In the seniority list for the post of P.W. 1 Grade-I, the respondent was shown at Serial No. 68. Respondent pleaded that he is entitled to be treated as P.W. 1 Grade-I with effect from the date on which three months had expired after his being included in the panel. That was not acceded to by the petitioners and they issued communication dated 19.8.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A. No. 705 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. He repeated the contentions that were made in his representation.
Petitioners, however, pleaded that the seniority can be reckoned only from the date on which the respondent was appointed to the post of P.W. 1 Grade-I and unless he has undergone training, there was no occasion for him to be appointed against that post.
The Tribunal allowed the O.A. through order dated 02.11.1999 and the same is in challenge under this writ petition.
Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, submits that according to the relevant Rules a candidate appointed under direct recruitment as P.W. 1 Grade-I, must undergo training for a period of one year, and though the period of training was condensed for the respondent to three months, it was completed only on 20.02.1994. He submits that the seniority of the respondent can be reckoned from that date. He submits that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the exemption of the respondent from training, as directed by the Tribunal, would lead to several complications.
Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent was otherwise entitled for consideration for promotion against 80% of the vacancies, and on account of his meritorious educational qualifications, he competed for the direct recruitment and the same was successfully completed for the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment and the same cannot lead to any disadvantage to him. He submits that the Tribunal has taken the correct view of the matter and that no interference is warranted.
It has already been mentioned that the method of appointment to Grade-I is through direct recruitment to the extent of 20% and promotion to the extent of 80%. Within the 20% vacancies earmarked for the direct recruitment, 10% are meant for internal candidates who have acquired degree qualifications in Engineering. The respondent falls into that category. Two-third of the posts of Grade-III are filled through direct recruitment and 1/3rd thereof by promotion from the lower category posts.
The appointment to the post of P.W. 1 Grade-I takes place from time to time. Whenever such appointments are made, both the categories are considered almost simultaneously. But for the fact that the respondent opted to pursue the accelerated avenue for the post of Grade-I, he would have been entitled to be considered for promotion against 80% vacancies, whether it is in the ordinary course or against the 60% of the restructured establishments. He appeared for the written test along with other fresh direct recruitees and was successful therein.
The training for direct recruitees is prescribed in view of the fact that a fresh recruitee must get acquaintance with the work pattern. Though the respondent has chosen the route of direct recruitment, he stands on separate footing since he has put in nearly 1 1/2 decades of service as P.W. 1 under Grade-Ill and Grade-II. Obviously, recognizing this, the period of his training was condensed to 3 months. While about 68 persons who were promoted either against 80% vacancies or restructured vacancies were inducted into service of Grade-I without any semblance of training, the induction of the respondent was delayed almost by 1 1/2 years, even after he was included in the panel after the selection process. Though the Tribunal made repeated efforts to know the reasons for delay in the training, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming. Further, when the respondent was already working as P.W. 1 Grade-II, and the training imparted to him was almost perfunctory, if not superfluous, there was no basis for delaying his induction into Grade-I particularly when 65 P.W. 1s Grade-II were straight away inducted to Grade-I, without any training. The Tribunal has taken a pragmatic and correct view of the matter in directing that the seniority of the respondent shall be reckoned from the date on which the period of 3 months expires after he was included in the panel. This accords not only with the principles of law but also with common sense.
The distinguishing feature for the respondent in W.P. No. 3254 of 2001 is that though he too was in panel of 4 persons, after the written test was held, for direct recruitment, he was drawn for being posted as Permanent Way Inspector Grade-I against the restructured vacancies. The record does not disclose that any option was permitted to be exercised by him. The posting was done on account of exigencies of service. However, in the seniority list, he was placed below the persons who were otherwise promoted against the 80% vacancies or restructured establishment, purely by way of promotion. A person who has chosen the competitive route and was not only successful therein, but also placed at Sl. No. 1 in the panel, cannot at all be subjected to any disadvantage. For all practicable purposes, he should be at Sl. No. 1 in the panel. When the same was denied to him, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and we do not find any factual or legal error, in the order of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand disposed of.