G VENKATESHWARA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the Appellant who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No. 263 of 1994. The Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) by its judgment and order dated March 17, 1997 dismissed the original application filed by the Appellant holding that the same is devoid of any merits. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The dispute in this appeal relates to filling up of the vacancy of Office Superintendent Grade II in the Guntupalli Workshop (Andhra Pradesh) Railways. The notification dated 28-11-1990 was issued for filling up the said vacancy. The roster points to be filled were 13 to 18. It is common ground that 14th point in the roster was reserved for SC and 17th point for ST. After following the procedure for selection, a provisional list of empanelled candidates for the said posts was prepared and issued vide notification dated 18-11-1991. The Appellant was at Sl. No. 6 Vacancy at roster point No. 14 was filled in by the SC candidate who was found suitable. But however, the vacancy for ST at roster point No. 17 could not be filled, as the said candidate was not available. It is the claim of the Appellant that since the vacancy earmarked for the ST candidate remained vacant and he being the next in the empanelled list, the vacancy should have been filled in by appointing him. This claim was made on the footing that the concerned authority at Guntupalli Workshop had recommended to the Railway Board that for want of ST candidate the said vacancy be dereserved for general category. This recommendation was although made sometime in 1991 but it remained pending till 1993 with the Railway Board for its approval. In the meantime, restructuring of the cadre took place vide Office Order No. 32 of 1993 issued on 1-3-1993 promoting respondent No. 4 in that vacancy. The Appellant submitted the representation to the higher authorities complaining that respondent No. 4 should not have been appointed and in his place, his claim should have been considered. The representation of the Appellant however, came to be rejected in view of the restructuring of the cadre. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation, the Appellant had filed the aforesaid OA before the CAT at Hyderabad.

(3.) It is common ground that by virtue of restructuring of the cadre, the Appellant could not have been appointed as claimed by him. Two contentions were raised before CAT, Hyderabad: