Dismissed

Rohit Bhalla v. Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Dec 2019W.P.(C)/12693/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Railway Railway Claims Tribunal vacancy notices for Technical Member and Vice-Chairman (Technical) posts. The Court held it was premature to question individual eligibility before the multi-member committee finalized selection and issued no interim stay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the stay application was disposed of as a final order had been passed in the main petition.

Rohit Bhalla Vs Ministry of Railways and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~35

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 2^nd December, 2019

¶3

W.P.(C) 12693/2019

¶4

ROHIT BHALLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashes Lal, Adv.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Preet Singh & Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advs. for Railways

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

: D.N. PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

C.M.No. 51872/2019 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 12693/2019 & C.M.No.51873/2019 (stay)

¶13

This so-called Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:

¶14

“a. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction for quashing the vacancy Notice No.20/2019 dated 22.03.2019 and Notice No.22/2019 dated 28.03.2019 and the entire selection process arising out of the said vacancy notices in the interest of justice.

¶15

W.P.(C) 12693/2019 Page 1 of 6

¶16

b. Call for the record of the case for proper adjudication of the case.

¶17

c. pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the vacancy notice dated 22^nd March, 2019 [Annexure P-1 (colly) to the memo of this writ petition] has been issued by respondent No.1, inviting applications for the post of Technical Member in the Railway Claims Tribunal, prescribing the requisite qualifications along with age limit, pay scale etc. It is further submitted that the candidates applying for the post of Technical Member in the Railway Claims Tribunal are required to hold a post for atleast 3 years under a Railway Administration, carrying pay-scale not less than that of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India and having adequate knowledge of rules and procedures as well as experience in claims and commercial matters relating to Railways.

¶19

Similarly, another vacancy notice dated 28^th March, 2019 inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chairman (Technical) required the applicant to hold a post under a Railway Administration carrying a pay-scale not less than that of a Joint Secretary to Government of India and having adequate knowledge of rules and procedures as well as experience in claims and commercial matters relating to Railways for atleast 5 years or has held the post of Technical Member in Railway Claims Tribunal for a period of not less than 3 years.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have invited applications for the aforesaid vacancies from the serving/current as well as retired employees of Indian Railway Traffic W.P.(C) 12693/2019 Page 2 of 6

¶21

Service (IRTS) and Indian Railway Accounts Service (IRAS). It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that these candidates have no such experience as required for the posts in question. Similarly, the retired persons also cannot be considered for appointment on the aforesaid posts because they cease to be IRTS and IRAS Officers once they retire.

¶22

Having heard both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons:

¶23

(i) The respondents have given two vacancy notices; one is dated 22^nd March, 2019 for the posts of Technical Member – 12 posts in Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT). The said notice is at Annexure P-1 (Collectively) (page 17 to the memo of this writ petition). For the ready reference, the specific requirements for the post in question as per the vacancy notice dated 22^nd March, 2019 read as under:

¶24

“SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS A PERSON SHALL NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR APPOINTMENT AS A TECHNICAL MEMBERS UNLESS HE HAS, FOR ATLEAST 3 YEARS HELD A POST UNDER A RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION CARRYING A SCALE OF PAY WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN THAT OF A JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND HAS ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF RULES AND PROCEDURE OF, AND EXPERIENCE IN CLAIMS AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

¶25

W.P.(C) 12693/2019 Page 3 of 6

¶26

RELATING TO RAILWAYS.”

¶27

(ii) Similarly, second vacancy notice dated 28^th March, 2019 has been issued by the respondents for the post of Vice Chairman (Technical) – 01 post in Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) which is annexed as Annexure P-1 (Collectively) (Page 20 to the memo of this writ petition). As per the said vacancy notice, specific requirements for the post in question read as under:

¶28

“SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS A PERSON SHALL NOT BE QUALIFIED FOR APPOINTMENT AS A VICE CHAIRMAN (TECHNICAL) UNLESS HE HAS, ATLEAST FOR 5 YEARS HELD A POST UNDER A RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION CARRYING A SCALE OF PAY WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN THAT OF A JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND HAS ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF RULES AND PROCEDURE OF, AND EXPERIENCE IN CLAIMS AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS RELATING TO RAILWAYS OR

¶29

HAS FOR A PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN 3 YEARS HELD OFFICE AS A TECHNICAL MEMBER IN RCT.”

¶30

(iii) It appears that for the posts mentioned in the aforesaid vacancy notices, the applications have been invited from the employees of IRTS and IRAS as well as from the retired employees of IRTS and IRAS. A Multi-Members Committee had been constituted in accordance with law and the selection process

¶31

W.P.(C) 12693/2019 Page 4 of 6

¶32

has already commenced.

¶33

(iv) Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the list of the candidates appearing for interview for the post of Technical Member is at page 25 – Annexure P-4 (collectively) wherein it is stated that most of these candidates are not eligible because they do not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria, especially the candidates from IRAS. We are not accepting this contention of the petitioner mainly for the reason that the employees of IRAS, who have applied for the posts in question, would, in ordinary course, to be dealing with the claims and commercial matters relating to Railway. The petitioner has not placed on record any material on the basis of which it could be alleged, much less held, that IRAS members do not possess the requisite experience. Moreover, as to whether a particular applicant/candidate is fulfilling the required eligibility criteria or not can only be verified once the selection process is over.

¶34

(v) Thus, before the Multi-Members Committee of the respondents finalizes the selection, it will be premature to exercise our powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to come to a conclusion whether a particular candidate is qualified or not. Petitioner has not placed on record qualifications of candidates who have appeared in the interview. The names of such candidates have been mentioned at page 25-27 of the memo of this writ petition. Hence, we further see no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage.

¶35

W.P.(C) 12693/2019 Page 5 of 6

¶36

In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

CM APPL.51873/2019 ( Stay )

¶38

In view of the final order passed in W.P.(C) 12693/2019, this application stands disposed of.

¶39

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶41

DECEMBER 02, 2019 ns

¶42

Page 6 of 6

¶43

W.P.(C) 12693/2019

Rohit Bhalla v. Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Bhalla v. Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of NCT and Ors.

Pankaj Bhargava Vs Union of India and Anr.

Executive Engineer P.W.D. Div. Vs Yogender Prasad & Ors.

Apfc Employees' Provident Funds Organisation Vs M/S Profolab

Union of India and Ors. Vs Madan Lal

Mukesh Raj Vs Union of India & Anr.

Somveer Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Hudson Overseas Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Icd, Tkd, New Delhi and Ors.

Manjinder Singh Sirsa Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dharam Singh Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Amit Sahni Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ahmed Rasheed Siddiqui Vs Indian Red Cross Society and Ors.

Shri Sandeep Dahiya Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.