Union of India, Rep by Vs the Registrar

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1^st respondent and quash the order dated 25/01/2024 in OA No. 310/00484/2020.

¶30

For Petitioner(s): Dr.P.G.Santhoshkumar For Respondent(s): R1 - Tribunal Mr.R.Pandian for R2

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

¶33

The respondents in O.A.No.484 of 2020 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2024, are the petitioners herein.

¶34

2.O.A.No.484 of 2020 had been filed by the 2^nd respondent,

¶35

R.Ganeshrajan, Loco Pilot / Mail and Express, in the office of the Chief Crew Controller, Madurai Junction, seeking a direction to include his name in the list of candidates for the selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in the Pay Matrix Level – 11.

¶36

Page2 of 7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP No. 34254 of 2024

¶39

3.The 2^nd respondent, P.Ganeshrajan, had joined railway service as Assistant Loco Pilot in the year 2002 at Hubballi Division of South Western Railway. He was promoted as Loco Pilot / Goods in the year 2007. He was then transferred to Madurai Division in the year 2011. On 14.08.2020, volunteers were called for selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in Pay Matrix Level – 7. It was his contention that he was fully qualified to be considered for the post of Chief Loco Pilot. But however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that his footplate running duty particulars at Hubballi was not available due to the transfer of data to Crew Management System (CMS) powered by Centre for Railway Information System (CRIS).

¶40

4.Questioning that decision, he had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal had examined the clarification issued by the Railway Board, by letter dated 07.06.2021, with respect to the stipulations to be considered for the post of Chief Loco Inspector. The relevant paragraphs were as follows:

¶41

“SCR vide letter under ref(I) has submitted that in the above eligibility criteria, the requirement of “5 Lakh Kilometres actual foot plate duties” have been clearly defined, however, the period of “10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots is not clearly defined and sought clarification from Railway Board.

¶42

__________ Page3 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

WP No. 34254 of 2024

¶45

The matter has been examined and it is clarified that “10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots” means 10 years of service as Loco Pilot i.e., 10 years of service as Loco Pilot including duties rendered as TLC, CC or PRC.”

¶46

5.Placing reliance on the same and further holding that failure to furnish details of the applicant during his service at Hubballi Division as Loco Pilot from 01.06.2007 to 24.06.2011 could not be held against him the Tribunal had allowed the application. It was further contended that the stipulation was either completion of 10 years of service as Loco Pilot or 5,00,000 kms of actual footplate experience as Loco Pilot. The relevant condition had been extracted by the Tribunal and we would extract it again:

¶47

“As per para 3, eligibility for appearing CLI exam is ‘Loco Pilots who have completed 5 Lakh Kms of actual footplate duties (actual footplate duties have been defined in Board’s Letter dated 12.02.2015) or have completed 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots, whichever is earlier, would be eligible for selection through suitability (written examination) cum seniority. Drafted Loco Pilots working as CC/PRC/TLC on date can also apply for the selection provided they fullfill the eligibility criteria”

¶48

6.We have perused the records.

¶49

__________ Page4 of 7

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

WP No. 34254 of 2024

¶52

7.It is evident from the records that the 2^nd respondent had completed 12 ½ years of service as Loco Pilot. Further, the date of his footplate duty at Hubballi Division, where he worked as Loco Pilot, from 01.06.2007 to 24.06.2011 were also not made available at the time when selection was made for the post of Chief Loco Inspector.

¶53

8.We are of the firm opinion that the 2^nd respondent had been seriously prejudiced by the writ petitioners not taking into consideration the period of his service and actual footplate experience as Loco Pilot. His footplate experience as Loco Pilot at Hubballi Division for more than 4 years from 01.06.2007 to 24.06.2011 had been completely omitted to be taken into consideration. Either way, we hold that, he was eligible for consideration as Chief Loco Inspector. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

¶54

9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. A direction is issued that the 2^nd respondent must be considered for the post of Chief Loco Inspector and if he is otherwise eligible, he should be accommodated in the post of Chief Loco Inspector with effect from the date he should have been promoted as Chief Loco Inspector. We hold he is eligible for all monetary and service benefits from that date. The said exercise must be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. The

¶55

Page5 of 7

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

WP No. 34254 of 2024

¶58

connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶59

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 19-02-2026

¶60

smv Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No