This Original Petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal order mandating appointment of the respondent-applicant in Sr.Permanent Way Supervisor post. The Kerala High Court upheld the Tribunal order, finding no legal grounds for interference.
The appeal was dismissed; time granted for implementation of Tribunal order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938
OP (CAT).No. 180 of 2016 (Z)
----------------------------OA.NO. 389/2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600 003.
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 002.
4. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, THAMPANOOR P.O. TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,RAILWAYS
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:
SURESH P., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.PATCHAN, RESIDING AT KALLUVILAYIL HOUSE, VENGA P.O., SASTHANKOTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-690 569.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
OP (CAT).No. 180 of 2016 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
O.P(CAT)No.180 OF 2016
Dated this the 1st July , 2016
JUDGMENT
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
Challenge is against the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the CAT in O.A.No.389 of 2014, whereby the applicant before the Tribunal has been ordered to be accommodated against the vacant slot in the post of Sr.Permanent Way Supervisor(SPWS), or as the Jr. Engineer (Permanent Way)- the post available after the merger which took place w.e.f. 03.07.2013.
2
O.P(CAT)No.180 OF 2016
process of selection, the applicant was enlisted at 'slot 1' of the supplementary panel and he was awaiting recruitment, based on his chance if at all any vacancy occurred in the meanwhile after accommodating persons enlisted in the main panel. The position, on enquiry, was let known to the applicant and the certificates produced were got verified. It was thereafter, that things took a different turn, whereby the chance to get appointment against the vacant slot was turned down, stating that a Board order had been issued, whereby the post of 'SPWS' got merged with the post of Assistant Engineer by virtue of which, they were not in a position to give any further employment as Jr. Engineer. This was sought to be challenged by filing O.A 389 of 2014 with the following prayers:
“i) Call for the records leading to the issue of A7 and quash the same; ii) Declare that the non-feasance on the part of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the applicant for an appointment as Sr.P.Way Supervisor (merged with Junior Engineer P.Way), is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and hence unconstitutional;
iii) Direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith issue offer/order
3
O.P(CAT)No.180 OF 2016
of appointment to the applicant as Sr.P.Way Supervisor against the vacancy against which the applicant was selected and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances arising there from, at least with effect from 01.01.2014;
iv) Award costs of and incidental to this application v) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case .”
various grounds. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal observed that the Board order dated 06.09.2013 indicated that selection process for appointment to the post of SPWS need not be stopped only in cases where notification has not been issued by the Board for filling up the post of SPWS. This by itself was quite enough to show that, in the case of the applicant, since the selection process was already over, the above Board order was not applicable and that the only point to be considered was whether there was any vacancy in the slot of SPWS before the date of merger.
4
O.P(CAT)No.180 OF 2016
petitioner concedes that all the candidates who got a placement in the 'main list' were offered appointment, but since one among them had expressed unwillingness, further proceedings were being pursued. Reference is also made to some correspondence in between. But it was in the meanwhile, that the merger of posts took place on 03.07.2013. There is no dispute with regard to the qualification and credentials of the applicant and the eligibility, by virtue of his placement at Slot 1 in the supplementary list is also not disputed. Since the vacancy in the main slot had occurred before the merger, further steps ought to have been followed, so as to fill up the said vacancy, by accommodating the next person, who was standing in the queue, who was none other than the applicant in the O.A. The merger of the posts cannot in any way place any hurdle with regard to the chance of getting appointment to the applicant; more so in view of the specific instruction as contained in the Board order dated 06.09.2013, to the effect that further proceedings need not be pursued only in respect of cases where notification had not been
5
O.P(CAT)No.180 OF 2016
issued.
note of the persuasive submission made by the learned standing counsel, this Court finds it appropriate to grant a further time of 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment for implementing the direction given by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
lk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the original petitioner appealing against the Central Administrative Tribunal order passed in OA.No.389/2014 has any tenable ground to interfere with the Tribunal order directing respondent to
Union of India
Suresh P.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
