Dismissed

Rajiv Ranjan Singh and Ors. v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC26 Mar 2014CWJC/2383/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside promotions. The High Court upheld that petitioners lacking 3 years of service before promotion were ineligible, rejecting their reliance on a Railway Board circular and a late-issued corrigendum.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed; Directed to waive recovery of salary/allowance difference for illegal promotion.

Rajiv Ranjan Singh and Ors. Vs The Union Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2383 of 2014

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Rajiv Ranjan Singh, son of late Sagun Prasad Singh, presently posted as Goods Guard, Muzaffarpur, under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Sikandarpur, Vidyapuram Colony, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur

¶6

Binod Kumar Singh, son of late Asharfti Singh, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Ward No.9, Farbishganj, District Araria, presently residing besides the Quarter No.110/D near RPF Police Station, Narkatiyaganj, District West Champaran

¶7

Sonelal Mahato, son of Sri Thaggan Mahato, presently Goods Guard, Darbhanga posted at Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Mannipur (Muktapur Railway Station), P.O. Sari, P.S. Waris Nagar, District Samastipur

¶8

Jashwant Kumar Singh, son of Sri Ramanand Singh, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Vilalge Chiknauta, P.O. Chapra Bahas, P.S. Sajauli, District West Champaran

¶9

Binod Kumar Kushwaha, son of late Jagdish, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj uder East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of village Raibarwa, P.O. & P.S. Sathi, District West Champaran, PIN 845455.

¶10

Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, son of late Babban Prasad Srivastava, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Railway Children’s Park Colony, Quarter No.L/170/B, Narkatiyaganj, P.O. Narkatiyaganj, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran, PIN-845455.

¶11

Sunil Kumar Srivastava, son of late Bageshwari Prasad, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Village Laxmipur (Marzadwa Station), P.O. Murli- Persauni, P.S. Purushottampur, District West Champaran, PIN845307.

¶12

Jagmohan Srivastava, son of late Devnarayan Srivastava, presently posted as Goods Guard, Narkatiyaganj under East Central Railway, Hajipur, permanent resident of Village Diuliya, P.O. Narkatiyanganj, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran, PIN-845455.

¶13

.... .... Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

The Union Of India, through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar)

¶16

The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar)

¶17

The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Samastipur (Bihar)

¶18

The Senior Divisonal Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur (Bihar)

¶19

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Samastipur (Bihar) .... .... Respondents

¶20

Jai Niwas Pandey, son of Shri Satya Narayan Pandey, working as Pointsman under S.S. Angarghat Railway Station.

¶21

Jitendra Kumar, son of Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, working as Pointsman under S.S. Tarsarai, Railway Station

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶23

¶24

Ram Prakash Rai, son of Ram Bahadur Rai, working as Pointsman under S.S.Bhagwanpur Desua, Railway Station.

¶25

Rajendra Sharma, son of Ram Chandra Sharma, working as Pointsman under S.S. Samastipur, Railway Station.

¶26

Harish Chandra Rai, son of ram Pratap Rai, working as Pointsman under S.S. Bhagawanpur Desua Railway Station. All are under the administrative control of Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur. Applicants/Resondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate Mr. Sita Ram Sharan, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH) 5 26-03-2014 With the help of this writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, all the petitioners herein have put to challenge the order, dated 18.3.2014, passed, in O.A. No.55 of 2012, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as „the learned Tribunal‟), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the present respondent no. 2, who was also respondent no. 2 in O.A. No. 55 of 2012, namely, the General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar) to (i) examine the entire selection/empanelment of Goods Guard and orders issued for promotion of Goods Guard from the category of Pointsmen; (ii) to examine whether the persons, who had completed three years of regular service, in the pay grades of 1,900/-, 2,400/- and/or 2,480/-, as the case may be,

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶28

¶29

had been empanelled or not; and (iii) if the empanelment had not been done in accordance with the Rules, then, to publish a fresh panel from amongst the candidates, who were eligible as per Rules and had fulfilled the requisite criteria and found suitable in the selection; and (v) i f, as a consequence of the above, some persons, already promoted, were required to be reverted, the Railway Board should consider some method of providing protection to them or reducing their hardship by, at least, waiving recovery of the difference in salary and allowances, which they would might have had drawn as a result of their having served in the promotional post till their reversion.

¶30

2. Before we consider the grounds of challenge to the above order of the learned Tribunal, it would be necessary to take notice of the case of the private respondents herein, who had approached the learned Tribunal by making Original Application, which had given rise to O. A. No. 55 of 2012. The case of the private respondents herein, as applicants in O.A.No.55 of 2012, was, in brief, as under:-

¶31

( i ) The East Central Railway had floated a notification, on 23.07.2010, for filling up 39 vacancies (34 UR, 3 SC, 2 ST) in the posts of Goods Guard in the Pay Band of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-, which stipulates that the vacancies shall be filled up by selection from amongst the holders of the posts of :

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶33

¶34

(i) Trains Clerk (Guard Lipik) in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-

¶35

(ii) Sr. Guards Clerk in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-

¶36

(iii) Ticket Collector in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-

¶37

(iv) Sr. Ticket Collector in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-

¶38

(v) Commercial Clerk in the grade pay of Rs.2,000/-

¶39

(vi) Sr. Commercial Clerk in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-

¶40

(vii) Shunting Master-II in the Grade Pay of Rs.2,400/-,

¶41

(viii) Shuntman in Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-,

¶42

(ix) Pointsman in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/(x) Leverman in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/(xi) Line Jamadar in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-

¶43

3. Coupled with the above, the notification, dated 23.07.2010, aforementioned put further condition that the selectee must fall in the grade pay of Rs.1,900/-, having completed 3 years of regular service.

¶44

4. Pursuant to the notification aforesaid, the petitioners as well as private respondents herein filled up appropriate forms for their being considered for appointment/promotion to the post of Goods Guard. Initially, a list of 151 eligible candidates was published, wherein the names of the writ petitioners figured at Sl. Nos. 66, 63, 101, 43, 10, 70, 76 and 35 respectively. The

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶46

¶47

petitioners successfully passed the written examination and were declared successful, vide letter, dated 25.11.2011, issued under the signature of Assistant Personnel Officer on behalf of the D.R.M. (Personnel), Samastipur. The names of the petitioners appeared at Sl. No.27, 2, 11, 16, 24, 30, 33 and 12 respectively of the select list, which had been prepared of the candidates, who had successfully competed in the written examination.

¶48

5. Thereafter, on the basis of the marks, obtained in the written examination, and the marks, calculated on the basis of service history, altogether 35 candidates were declared selected for the posts of Goods Guard and a notification to this effect was published on 03.01.2012. The names of the petitioners appeared at Sl. Nos. 9, 18, 20, 21, 30, 33, 12 and 19 of the finally selected candidates. On completing their training pursuant to the selection so made, the petitioners herein, joined, in terms of the order, dated 16.05.2012, issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer, Samastipur, the posts of Goods Guard, at different places, under Samastipur Division.

¶49

6. Being aggrieved, the private respondents 6 to 10 herein, who had also been working as Pointsmen in Samastipur Division, challenged the appointments of writ petitioners 1 to 5 herein by filing O. A. No. 55 of 2012 on the ground that they (i.e. the writ petitioners 1 to 5) did

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶51

¶52

not have, in terms of the relevant advertisement, requisite eligibility criteria for being appointed to the posts of Goods Guard inasmuch as the notification, dated 23.07.2010, inviting applications for consideration to the posts of Goods Guard, clearly specified the eligibility criteria, one of the criteria being that a Pointsman shall be, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/- with 3 years of regular service in that category. The applicants, in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, asserted that the writ petitioners 1 to 5 had not completed 3 years of regular service, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-, as Pointsman, and they could not have, therefore, been promoted to the post of Goods Guard, when they were not eligible in terms of the notification, dated 23.07.2010, aforementioned.

¶53

7. The writ petitioners herein took the plea before the learned Tribunal that the applicants therein (i.e. private respondents herein) had misconceived and misinterpreted the advertisement, dated 23.07.2010. They stated that the advertisement stipulated that at the time of making of the application, pursuant to the advertisement, one shall have 3 years‟ experience in service subject to the condition that he shall be in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- at the time of making application.

¶54

8. The writ petitioners contended, in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, that 3 years of regular service, in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, was applicable to the candidates of first

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶56

¶57

category, e.g. Trains Clerk (Guard Lipik). The writ petitioners further contended that this fact would become evident from corrigendum, dated 08.09.2010, which stated that eligibility criteria of having minimum 3 years‟ service, in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, was a mistake in the light of R. B. No. 123 of 1998, dated 05.06.1998, issued by the Railway Board, ensuring thereby that those, who had completed minimum 3 years of service and working in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, were eligible to participate in the selection test.

¶58

9. In other words, according to the writ petitioners, the corrigendum aforesaid clarified that it was not necessary to have 3 years of regular service, in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-, at the time of making of application seeking selection/empanelment for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Goods Guard; rather, what was required, according to the writ petitioners, as contended in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, was that the candidate must have completed three years of service and shall be working in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/- at the relevant time.

¶59

10. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the advertisement, dated 23.07.2010, corrigendum, dated 08.09.2010, as well as the notification of the Railway Board bearing R. B .No. 12 of 1998, dated 05.06.1998, came to the finding that eligibility criteria, which the

¶60

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶61

¶62

private respondents in O. A. No. 55 of 2012 had mentioned, were misconceived. The learned Tribunal held that the said Circular of the Railway Board does not give an impression that one, who had not completed 3 years of regular service, in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, as Pointsman, would also be eligible for consideration to the post of Goods Guard. The learned Tribunal further held that the corrigendum, besides being misconceived, could not be of any help to the private respondents, in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, inasmuch as it had been issued much beyond the last date of filling up of forms. In fact, according to the learned Tribunal, the corrigendum, in question, was issued barely three days prior to the selection, which, too, was intervened by holidays. Thus, concluded the learned Tribunal, it does not seem practical that the results could have been validly prepared. Having reached these conclusions, the learned Tribunal issued the directions, which we have already pointed out above.

¶63

11. The private respondents, in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, along with three others similarly placed candidates, have filed this writ petition against the order so passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶64

12. The writ petitioners have taken the same stand, which they had taken in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, and contend before us that the learned Tribunal erred in misconstruing the provisions of the Railway Board‟s

¶65

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶66

¶67

Circular bearing R. B. No. 12 of 1998, dated 05.06.1998, and wrongly overlooked the corrigendum, dated 08.09.2010.

¶68

13. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties.

¶69

14. We find that the notification/advertisement, dated 23.07.2010, invited applications for filling up of 39 posts of Goods Guard from the holders of various categories of posts including Pointsman, who had put in 3 years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-. The present writ petitioners had, admittedly, not served regularly for three years, as Pointsman, in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-. The writ petitioners heavily rely upon the corrigendum, dated 08.09.2010, to canvass before us that the notification, dated 23.07.2010, requiring eligibility of having minimum 3 years of service, in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-, for appointment to the posts of Goods Guard (in the Pay Band of Rs.5,200-20,200) was a mistake inasmuch as the requirement, in the light of R. B. No. 12 of 1998, dated 05.06.1998, was 3 years of regular service in any rank with, of course, the condition that at the time of making of application, one must be in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-.

¶70

15. In other words, according to the writ petitioners, it was not necessary, as per R.B. No. 123 of

¶71

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶72

¶73

1998, that one should have completed 3 years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-; rather, what was required was that one must have completed regular service in any rank or grade for a period of three years subject, however, to the condition that the candidate shall, at the time of making of application seeking empanelment for promotion to the post of Goods Guard, be in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-.

¶74

16. We are unable to accept the above submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners and fully agree with the view, taken by the learned Tribunal, that Circular bearing R.B. No. 123 of 1998 does not support the contention of those, who were private respondents in O. A. No. 55 of 2012, i.e., the writ petitioners herein.

¶75

17. In order to appreciate the scope and true intent of R. B. Circular No. 123 of 1998, we extract herein below the Circular of Railway Board bearing R. B. No. 12 of 1998, dated 05.06.1998 :-

¶76

“124(I) The posts in the Category of Goods Guards in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 (RSRP) Will be filled up as under:

¶77

(i) 60% by general selection from amongst serving regular employees with a minimum of three years service working in grade (s) Rs.3050-4590/ 3200-4900/ 4000-6000 in the category of Trains Clerks/ Sr. Train Clerks/ Commercial Clerks/ Sr. Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors/ Sr. Ticket Collectors, Switchmen, Asstt. Guards/ Sr. Asstt. Guards and Yard staff”

¶78

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶79

¶80

18. We find that the post of Pointsman was not included in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Goods Guard in the Circular bearing R.B. No.123 of 1998. On the other hand, it would appear that a person, in the feeder category of Goods Guard, ought to have put in minimum 3 years of regular service in the Pay Grade of 3,050-4,500/-, 3,200-4,900/-, 4,000-6,000/-. Furthermore, R. B. No. 123 of 1998 does not delimit the completion of 3 years of regular service to any particular feeder category, but applies to all feeder categories.

¶81

19. The petitioners state that by now, they have already served 1½ years as Goods Guard and it may not be appropriate to revert them to their posts, which they were holding prior to their promotion. In our view, if a promotion has been granted against the provisions of law, the beneficiary cannot claim any indefeasible right to remain glued to the promotional post.

¶82

20. Situated thus, we hold that the Circular bearing R. B. No. 123 of 1998 does not, in any manner, convey that a person, with less than 3 years of regular service, in grade pay of Rs. 1,900/-, would be eligible for promotion/appointment to the post of Goods Guard. Reliance of the writ petitioners on the corrigendum, dated 08.09.2010, is also misconceived inasmuch as this corrigendum was issued much beyond the last date prescribed for filling up of the forms. In fact, the

¶83

Patna High Court CWJC No.2383 of 2014 (5) 26-03-2014

¶84

¶85

corrigendum aforementioned was issued only 3 days prior to the publication of the result, which, too, was intervened by holidays. The corrigendum, issued much beyond the last date of filing application, would be, in any view of the matter, meaningless and can be of no legal consequence, because the date for receiving the application had not been extended and all those, who had applied earlier within time, were given opportunity to apply afresh if so required. Further-more, the corrigendum, which is said to correct the earlier notification prescribing the eligibility conditions in light of R. B. No. 123 of 1998, does not, in fact, bear out the true import of the said Circular of the Railway Board.

¶86

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ application is dismissed. However, before parting with this order, we would reiterate the observations of the learned Tribunal that the State respondents should waive the recovery of differences in salary and/or allowances of the writ petitioners, which the writ petitioners might have drawn on account of their illegal promotions to the posts of Goods Guard.

¶87

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

¶88

I agree

¶89

(I.A. Ansari,J):

¶90

(I. A. Ansari, J)

¶91

Md.Jamaluddin Khan

Rajiv Ranjan Singh and Ors. v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Ranjan Singh and Ors. v. The Union Of India 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

Sita Ram Choudhary Vs Bihar Intermediate Education C

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Prem Kumar Pandit

Shreekant Singh Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Premier Irrigation Adriteck Private Limited Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Premier Irrigation Adriteck Private Limited Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dirghayu Preventive Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs The District Magistrate Cum Chairman And Ors.