Dismissed

Gaj Singh v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2019CW/16903/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court in a D.B. civil writ petition disposed of the matter against the petitioner. A division bench held that termination of petitioner's service as a fresh face substitute conforms to Supreme Court order allowing age relaxation for selection process and dismissal of petition in limine.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine; no order on merits of termination.

Gaj Singh Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16903/2019

¶3

Gaj Singh S/o Bheru Singh, aged About 42 Years, Balaji Nagar Pal Balaji Jodhpur Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India, through the General Manager North Western Railway Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶7

Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway Jodhpur Division Jodhpur Rajasthan.

¶8

Divisional Personnel Officer, North Western Railway Jodhpur Division Jodhpur Rajasthan.

¶9

The Union of India, through Secretary Department of Labour Ministry National Council for Vacation Training New Delhi.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Judgment

¶14

21/11/2019

¶15

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.19 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jodhpur Bench (“Tribunal”), whereby the original application preferred by him challenging notice dated 5.1.2018 issued by the respondent-Railways directing termination of his services w.e.f. 4.2.18, stands dismissed.

¶16

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide circular dated 10.9.04 issued by the Railway Administration, the applications were invited for engagement of fresh face substitutes

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

[CW-16903/2019]

¶19

in Group-D services restricting the consideration of the candidates from amongst the act apprentices, who were extended apprenticeship training by the Railways under the provisions of Apprenticeship Act, 1961 in conformity with the policy decision dated 30.8.04 taken by the General Manager, Northern Railway. Some of the candidates who obtained the apprenticeship training certificates from the institutes other than the Railways, challenged the said policy decision by way of Original Applications Nos.265, 238, 264 of 2004, which were allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.2.05. The policy decision dated 30.8.04 and the proceedings subsequent thereto were quashed. However, the Railways was given liberty to take recourse for engaging fresh face substitutes against Group-D services if the same is considered emergent in service exigencies.

¶20

Aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal, the Union of India preferred writ petitions being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4272, 4273 and 4274 of 2005 before this Court, wherein, initially, vide interim order dated 3.8.05, the operation of the order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal was stayed, however, the same was subsequently modified vide orders dated 22.8.05 and 5.1.06 directing that the selections, if any made pursuant to the policy decision, shall be subject to final decision of the said petitions. Ultimately, vide order dated 5.12.07, the writ petitions were finally decided by this Court. The order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside policy decision dated 30.8.04, was affirmed, however, the directions issued by the Tribunal qua setting aside the subsequent proceedings were set aside for the reason that during the intervening period fresh face substitutes were engaged with a

¶21

(3 of 7)

¶22

[CW-16903/2019]

¶23

clear stipulation of continuation of their services till regularly recruited Group-D employees are made available. It was also clarified by this Court that the Railways should complete the process of direct recruitment as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months and in case the Railways fail to complete the process of selection within four months, fresh face substitutes will have to be discontinued pursuant to their engagement based on circular dated 30.8.04. Since the Railways failed to complete the process of regular selection within the stipulated period, the services of the fresh face substitutes engaged based on circular dated 30.8.04 were ordered to be terminated vide order dated 25.8.08.

¶24

It is noticed that the petitioner engaged as fresh face substitute along with other applicants who did not challenge the order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal, initially before this Court, preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the said order as also the order passed by the Bench of this Court dated 5.12.07, in which the leave was granted and they continued on the said engagement due to interim orders. Vide order dated 20.9.17, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeals No.5027-5029 of 2012 arising out of the SLPs preferred. Consequently, vide notice dated 5.1.18, the Railways directed that the petitioner shall be extended an opportunity to apply pursuant to any notification for recruitment issued by the Railways in future while giving age relaxation equal to the period of service rendered by him as substitute. However, his services were ordered to be terminated w.e.f. 4.2.18. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the original application before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

¶25

(4 of 7)

¶26

[CW-16903/2019]

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without extending an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the recruitment, the respondents could not have terminated the services of the petitioner. The termination of services of the petitioner was in defiance of the order passed by the Supreme Court and thus, the order passed by the Tribunal declining to interfere with the order of termination, deserves to be set aside for this reason alone.

¶28

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶29

Indisputably, vide order dated 5.12.07 passed by this court in D.B.C.Writ Petitions Nos.4272, 4273 and 4274 of 2005, the order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal to the extent of setting aside policy decision dated 30.8.04 was affirmed, however, the directions issued by the Tribunal qua setting aside the subsequent proceedings were set aside for the reason that during the intervening period, fresh substitutes were engaged with the clear stipulation of continuance of their service till regularly recruited Group D employees are made available. It was also clearly stipulated in the order that the Railways should complete the process of direct recruitment as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months. It was also clarified that in case the Railways fail to complete the process of selection within four months, the services of the fresh face substitutes engaged based on circular dated 30.8.04 will have to be discontinued. It is not in dispute that the services of the fresh face substitutes were brought to an end vide order dated 25.8.08 inasmuch as, the Railways failed to complete the process of regular selection within the stipulated time.

¶30

(5 of 7)

¶31

[CW-16903/2019]

¶32

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 24.2.05 passed by the Tribunal before this court, however, later challenged the said order as also the order dated 5.12.07 passed by this court by way of SLPs before the Supreme Court. The petitioner continued in service pursuant to interim order passed by the Supreme Court. But the fact remains that ultimately vide order dated 20.9.17, the SLPs preferred were dismissed by the Supreme Court with the observations and directions in the following terms:

¶33

“12. As far as the second issue raised by Mr.R.Venkatramni, learned senior counsel is concerned, we may have sympathy with the appellants but we cannot direct that they be continued in service. The courts below held that they have been employed in violation of the general directions issued by the Railways from time to time wherein there is no restriction of limiting the field of choice to Railways trained apprenticeship. It is only in Bikaner Division of the Railways that this limitation was placed.

¶34

The appellants were well aware that their appointments made when the original applications were pending before the Tribunal or when the writ petitions were pending before the High Court were subject to the result of the litigation. They did not choose to file any application for intervention before the High Court. After the Railways lost in the High Court and did not carry the matter further, they approached this Court. They were granted stay and have been continuing on the basis of the stay order. They knew that their fate depended upon the result of the litigation. Once their appeal is dismissed they cannot be permitted to be continued in employment only because they have been permitted to continue due to the interim orders.

¶35

At this stage, we may note that the learned Solicitor General had informed us that fresh regular recruitment for Group-D posts and other posts in Bikaner Division of the Railways is under process. On 24^th August, 2017, 14 original applications were granted age relaxation for a period of 13 years and they were permitted to appear in the selection process wherein their cases would be considered on merits. Mr. R.Venkatramni, learned senior counsel had sought time to take instructions from his clients in this regard. He now submits that his clients, having served for more than 10 years, are not in a

¶36

(6 of 7)

¶37

[CW-16903/2019]

¶38

position to appear in the test. We are concerned with a large number of appellants and in case the process for selection is still on, we direct the Railways to give relaxation of age to the appellants by deducting the period of service for which they have worked and they may also be considered at par with the original applicants by allowing them to take part in the selection process. In case the appellants or any of them do not take part in the selection process, they will not be given relaxation of age in any further selection process. As far as the intervenors are concerned, no relief can be granted to them.”

¶39

(emphasis added)

¶40

A bare perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that the counsel appearing for the petitioner had made a categorical statement before the Supreme Court that his clients having served for more than ten years, are not in position to appear in the test. However, expressing the concern about large number of appellants, the Supreme Court directed that in case the process for selection is still on, the Railways shall give relaxation in age to the appellants therein by deducting the period of service for which they had worked and they shall be considered at par with the original applicants by allowing them to take part in the selection process. It is not the case of the petitioner that though willing to participate in the ongoing selection process, he was not permitted to do so by the Railways. As a matter of fact, even going beyond the directions issued by the Supreme Court, extending age relaxation to the appellants therein to take part in ongoing selection process while issuing the impugned notice, the Railways has offered an opportunity to the petitioner to avail the age relaxation as directed by the Supreme Court in case any recruitment process is initiated by the Railways in future. Suffice it to say that the notice dated 5.1.18 issued by the respondentRailways in no manner could be said to be in defiance of directions issued by the Supreme Court. Rather, the termination of the

¶41

(7 of 7)

¶42

[CW-16903/2019]

¶43

services of the petitioner is in conformity with the order passed by the Supreme Court as aforesaid.

¶44

In view of the discussion above, we are firmly of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court.

¶45

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.

¶46

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶47

(SANGEET LODHA),J

Gaj Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaj Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs Sumit Agarwal

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs Sumit Agarwal

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs Sumit Agarwal

Udai Singh @ Veer Singh @ Gendi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawani Singh Vs State