Dismissed

Vineetha V.V. v. the Union of India

Kerala HC4 Feb 2020OP (CAT)/266/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a petition by five candidates challenging their exclusion from appointment due to not falling within the 20% excess merit list for document verification. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order rejecting claims for General and OBC vacancies, as applicants qualified via OBC relaxation and could not claim general vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; parties left to bear respective costs; no interference with Tribunal order on vacant posts.

Vineetha V.V. Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

OP (CAT).No.266 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDERIN OA 1039/2016 DATED 19-07-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 VINEETHA V.V. AGED 30 YEARS W/O. PRATHEESH KUMAR, THEKKEBLAYIL HOUSE, PUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 038

¶11

2 SEEMA P.C. W/O. BIJU K.T., KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEVADA P.O., PULIYANNUR, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 573

¶12

3 VIJOY K S/O. PAVITHRAN K., KOYAMBRATH HOUSE, KUTTIKKAM P.O., EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 663

¶13

4 DIPINSYAM S.D. S/O. DAMODARAN N.K., KOTTAPARAMBATH HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), CALICUT DISTRICT - 673 620

¶14

5 SIBI A.J. D/O. JOSEPH, ARUKULASSERIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, KADUNGAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 305

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.D.SREEKANTH SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA

¶16

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶17

-2-

¶18

RESPONDENT/S:

¶19

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI - 600 003

¶20

2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/RECRUITMENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY/ RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL NO. 5, DR. P.V. CHERIAN CRESCENT ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 003

¶21

3 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI - 600 003

¶22

4 THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001

¶23

R1-4 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR PANEL,RAILWAYS

¶24

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶26

-3-

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2020

¶29

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

Petitioners, five in number were applicants pursuant to to a notification published by the Railways produced as Annexure A1 dated 15.12.2010, in the original application. There were a total of 3592 Group-D vacancies notified by the Railways. The selection procedure included a written test, a physical efficiency test and document verification for persons qualifying in the written test and physical efficiency. While calling persons for document verification, the Railways call for 20% candidates, in excess of the vacancies. The petitioners herein admittedly were not called for document verification since they did not figure within the

¶31

20% excess vacancies called for document verification.

¶32

One other aspect which is final insofar as the

¶33

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶34

-4-

¶35

petitioners are concerned is their claim for appointment to the general vacancies which were not fully filled up as per the selection conducted, but notified in Annexure A1. The said issue was agitated earlier and a Division Bench of this Court by Annexure A15 produced in the original application rejected their claims. The petitioners qualified in the written test only on the basis of relaxation granted to OBC candidates. While the general candidates have to secure 40% marks, the OBC candidates in the reserved category were given a relaxation of 10%. All the petitioners herein were persons who had less than 40%, but, above 30%. In such circumstances, their claim can only be against the OBC vacancies.

¶36

It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that their claim, as of now, is to the Nonjoining duty (NJD) vacancies in the OBC category. As per

¶37

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶38

-5-

¶39

Annexure A15 decision, the Railways were directed to publish separate list for the open competition vacancies as also the reserved category. Insofar as the OBC vacancies are concerned, a list was published which indicated that 884 vacancies were to be filled up by OBC from the 3592 vacancies notified. Since 20% excess candidates had to be called for document verification, 177 more candidates were summoned, making the total, 1061. Out of the total 1061, 18 candidates had the very same marks and hence a further 18 candidates were also called for document verification, thus, totalling 1079. The mark obtained by the 1079^th candidate, as is seen from the reply affidavit (in paragraph 8), was 49.186. The reply in the very same paragraph also specifies the marks obtained by the applicants which is below that of the 1079^th candidate. As of now appointment orders were issued for all the 884 vacancies; is the specific contention of

¶40

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶41

-6-

¶42

the Railways, which was accepted by the Tribunal and we do not think there can be any interference caused to that.

¶43

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, harp upon the NJD vacancies. We have already in O.P.(CAT) No.275 of 2019 found that only 9 candidates, who were applicants there and who figured in the replacement list published, pursuant to the notification of the year 2010 would be entitled to be granted appointment in the NJD vacancies. The applicants therein were persons who were included in the rank list, that is, coming within the 1079 candidates. But, however, even all of them could not be appointed and only 9 candidates were entitled to be adjusted against the NJD vacancies, for reason of the others having not taken legal remedies.

¶44

In such circumstances, we do not think there can be any interference caused to the order of the Tribunal. The original

¶45

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶46

-7-

¶47

petition is rejected, leaving the parties to suffer their

¶48

respective costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/04.02.2020 xxx

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶55

-8-

¶56

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 266/2019

¶57

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA NO. 180/001039/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶59

EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RRC 05/2010 DATED 15-12-2010

¶60

EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. RRC/E.N.05/2010/PET DATED 17-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT

¶61

EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE PART SELECT LIST CONSISTING OF 731 CANDIDATES WITH THEIR ROLL NO.S PUBLISHED UNDER A COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. NIL DATED 23-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PART SELECT LIST CONSISTING OF 1702 CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER ROLL NO. NIL DATED 15-03-2013 EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 121/2005 DATED 18-07-2005 EXHIBIT (A6) TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 166/2005 DATED 29-09-2005 EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION COLLECTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶62

EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF CHART SHOWING BRIEF DETAILS MATERIAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE OA

¶63

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶64

-9-

¶65

EXHIBIT	P1(A9)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24-11-2014 IN OA NO. 175 OF 2014 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT	P1(A10)	TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 199/2005 DATED 29-09-2005 (PRODUCED AS R2 IN OA NO. 175/2014)
EXHIBIT	P1(A11)	TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 73/2008 DATED 17-06-2008 (PRODUCED AS R3 IN OA NO. 175/2014)
EXHIBIT	P1(A12)	TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 6/2014 DATED 10-01-201 (PRODUCED AS R4 IN OA NO. 175/2014)
EXHIBIT	P1(A13)	TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS PRODUCED IN R2(1) A CONSOLIDATED MERIT ORDER LIST (FINAL) DATED 29-01-2015 FOR EN NO. 5/2010-LESS R(2)
EXHIBIT	P1(A14)	TRUE COPY OF MERIT LIST OF PANEL OF RECOMMENDED CANDIDATE EN NO. 05/2010 (R.2(2)) PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT	P1(A15)	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT) NO. 78/2015 DATED 09-03-2016 RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
EXHIBIT	P1(A16)	TRUE COPY OF LIST FOR UR CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1(A17)	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OBC CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1(A18)	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST FOR SC CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1(A19)	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST FOR ST CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P1(A20)	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST FOR PWD CATEGORY
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN OA NO. 180/001039/2016
EXHIBIT	P2(R1)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE

¶66

O.P.(CAT) No.266 of 2020

¶67

-10-

¶68

		TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 24-11- 2014 IN OA NO. 176/2014
EXHIBIT	P2(R2)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 24/11/2014 IN OA NO. 2456 OF 2014
EXHIBIT	P2(R3)	TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER DATED 17/06/2008
EXHIBIT	P2(R4)	TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER DATED 10/01/2014
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 180/00931/2018 IN OA NO. 180/001039/2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
EXHIBIT	P3(A21)	TRUE COPY OF THE RTA REQUEST REGISTRATION NO. SORLY/R/2018/50176
EXHIBIT	P3(A22)	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO. PB/RTI/146/2426 DATED 26/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY, CHENNAI
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-07-2019 IN OA NO. 180/001039/2016
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-04-2019 IN OA NO. 180/00712/2016
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-08-2018 IN OA NO. 60/343/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH

Vineetha V.V. v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineetha V.V. v. the Union of India

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

Union of India Vs Sandeep Pandey

Union of India Vs Vishnu Thampi

The State of Kerala Vs M. Brahmadathan

Sandhya v., Vs the Travancore Vevaswom Board

The Chief Manager Vs Sudhakaran.S

Jithin M., Vs State of Kerala