SUMANGALA NAGANATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had appeared for the combined U.P.S.C. examination; that on selection was allotted to the Railway Protection Force. She was appointed as Assistant Security Officer, Group 'A' on 2-9-1981. A notification was issued by the Railway Board to fill up 50% of the vacancies in the Senior Scale of Indian Railway Personnel Service from other services under the Ministry of Railway in terms of Rule 8-1(c)(ii) of the said Notification dated 20-12-1975. The appellant applied for absorption in the Senior Scale of I.R.P.S. The Ministry of Railway processed the matter and after consulting the UPSC, the appellant was appointed as Senior Scale Officer in the Senior Scale of IRPS on 1-8-1989.

(2.) An application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, challenging the validity of the Rule 8-1(c)(ii) and also the appointment of the appellant to IRPS. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the said Rule but quashed the appointment of the appellant. That part of the order by which the Rule has been upheld is not in challenge before us and has become final.

(3.) Now the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal in quashing the appointment of the appellant in IRPS, Senior Scale is correct or not. The Tribunal in setting aside the order of appointment of the appellant to IRPS considered certain factors:firstly, that on an earlier occasion in the year 1986, a request had been made to the UPSC for lateral induction of the appellant in the senior time scale of IRPS with a proposal for amendment of the recruitment Rules but was not accepted by the UPSC. UPSC felt that the RPF and IRPS are two separate and distinct cadres and their amalgamation at any level cannot be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the system under which candidates appearing at a common examination and opt for or getting allotted to different services on the basis of their choice, perception or suitability and relative position in the Merit List of successful candidates. The Tribunal was in fact persuaded by this reasoning. Secondly the Tribunal felt that on present occasion when UPSC accepted the recommendation to appoint appellant was kept in the dark as to the earlier correspondence on this aspect of the matter. Thirdly it was noticed by the Tribunal that such a lateral induction of the RPF officers in IRPS would not serve any purpose because the kind of the service which she has been discharging is altogether different and the services of the RPF which is an army and experience gained there cannot be utilised in the IRPS.