Petition challenging order of CAT dismissed

Source: The Hitavada      Date: 02 Sep 2017 09:51:54

Legal Correspondent,

In the matter related to petitioners challenged the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners, West Central Railway (WCR) initiated selection process in Accounts Department after receiving due permission from Railway Board to the post of Accounts Officer, Group B post, the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice S K Gangele and Justice Anurag Shrivastava has said that considering all the aspects, in our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Consequently, we do not find any merit in these petitions. Both the petitions are hereby dismissed. The division bench has heard two petitions filed by R K Singh and others.

Before the CAT, the petitioners challenged the order of selection and promotion pursuant to notification dated on February 26, 2004. The petitioners also prayed some other relief. As controversy involved in both the petitions are similar in nature, both the petitions are tagged together and heard together.

Both the petitions are decided by this common order. Facts of petition are being taken into consideration. The Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners. WCR initiated selection process in Accounts Department after receiving due permission from Railway Board to the post of Accounts Officer, Group B post. There were 14 vacancies of Group B posts under 70 per cent category, out of which 3 were reserved for SC/ST category. The WCR selected 45 persons for the aforesaid 14 vacancies for consideration. A provisional inter se seniority list of all the supervisory staff working in Accounts Department of WCR was published on February 26, 2004. Objections were invited. Some objections were received from the employees.

The management considered the objections and the representations. Revised provisional inter se seniority list was published on March 22, 2004. Thereafter, few objection received, which were again considered and replied. Final list was published on April 8, 2004. A list of 45 candidates of three times to the vacancies of 14 posts + 3 candidates on the ground that these 3 candidates were ‘twice failed’ candidates and they are in the zone of consideration. A written examination was held on April 23, 2004. No objection was raised by any of the employee.

From the date of written examination, upto the date of declaration of result, no representation was received by the management. After written examination, some representations were received questioning the validity of zone of consideration. Those representations were considered and thereafter, the management had selected the candidates. The petitioners challenged the selection of the candidates before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering merits of the case, dismissed the application vide impugned order.

Before the Tribunal, the selected candidates submitted application and they were made parties, although the petitioners did not add them as a party. The petitioners raised following objections in regard to selection of the candidates that the seniority list was not drawn properly and all the persons who were eligible to be included in the list had not been included. The inter se seniority list was prepared on the basis of whims and fancies. The eligible candidates, who were within the zone of consideration, were not called.

Petitioners namely A K Tiwari, O P Tamrakar and Mukesh Dubey should have been included in the list. R K Singh, A K Kamble and Mahesh Kumar were reserved category candidates. The minimum qualifying marks have to be relaxed in accordance with the circular of the Railway Board in case of reserved category candidates. However, this fact has not been followed.The Tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the circular dated on August 7, 2002. The combined seniority list should have been prepared multiplying by three. The zone of consideration was improper.