SUNIL B MASUR Vs. RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of apprentice Mechanic (Mechanical) and his name was recommended to the Konkan Railway administration by the Railway. Recruitment Board. This fact was communicated to the appellant as per Annexure-B letter dated 22. 5. 1995 issued by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board. In Annexure-B, it was also stated that an offer of appointment would be issued to the appellant in due course by the appointing authority, provided he was otherwise suitable. However, it was also stated in Annexure-B that qualifying in the interview does not confer on the candidate any claim for appointment which is subject to their being found suitable by the Administration in all respects. The appellant was also requested to contact the Chief Personnel Manager, Konkan railway Corporation Limited, in all future correspondence. Since, no offer of appointment was received from the Konkan Railway Administration, the appellant submitted Annexure-D, representation to the chief Personnel Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited requesting to issue an appointment order to the appellant at the earliest. The said representation was received in the office of the Chief Personnel as Manager on 18. 5. 2000. Still there was no favourable response from the Konkan Railway Corporation. Hence, the appellant filed the Writ petition No. 22740/2000 praying for a direction to appoint the appellant as Apprentice-Mechanic (Mechanical), Junior Engineer (Mechanical) or any other equivalent post in Konkan Railway, southern Railway, South Central Railway, Wheel and Axcel Plant or any other zones.

(2.) THE Konkan Railway Corporation filed the statement of objections opposing the prayer in the writ petition. In the statement of objections it is specifically stated that in the absence of a vacancy or additional requirement, it was not possible to offer any appointment to the petitioner/appellant. It was also stated that there were 10 candidates including the petitioner who had been empanelled by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore, Trivendrum, Mumbai in may 1995 for Konkan Railway. But there was no vacancy to accommodate any additional hand in the category mentioned. It was further stated that Konkan Railway had not recruited any candidate from open market to the post for which the Railway Recruitment Board had selected the petitioner. According to the averments in the statement of objections, being unable to offer appointment, Konkan Railway corporation had made sincere attempt to get the petitioner and similarly placed persons an alternative placement in Central/western or Southern Railway, based on the selection by the Railway Recruitment Board. However, they too could not accommodate the candidates inspite of best efforts, as there were no vacancies and there was no possibility in the near future. It was contended in the statement of objections that Konkan Railway corporation did not offer a job to the petitioner and that the qualifying in the selection process conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board did not confer on the candidate any right or claim for appointment. But it is specifically pleaded that it was not possible for the Konkan Railway corporation to offer appointment to the petitioner as there was no vacancy in the category and there was no possibility of any vacancy becoming available in the near future.

(3.) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner in the writ petition has filed this appeal.