JAGJIT SINGH UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against orders made by a letter of 26th July, 1966 emanating from the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, New Delhi by which the petitioners have been informed that their names have been removed from a selection panel on which the names had been brought sometime back and that they would hold their present posts ex gratia till such time as they are reempanelled through fresh selection. The result of the issue of this letter, according to the petitioners, is that though they continue to hold the posts to which they were appointed after the earlier selection and subsequent passing of the prescribed course, they will again have to appear and compete for being selected and if at all selected would become junior to those who have been empanelled in the subsequent selections or even in the subsequent selections or even in the selection which took place when the petitioners were also empanelled. The complaint of the petitioners is that the impugned action affects their status and is likely to affect their seniority which is unjustified both in law as well as the practice prevalent in the department.

(2.) The facts leading to the impugned order being passed are that the petitioners who were Railway employees in subordinate grades came to know by a letter dated 7-2-1961, issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway (Annexure `A' to the petition) that applications were invited for selection to the posts of Assistant Station masters and Section Controllers from staff in various categories who had already passed some qualifying courses known as the old P.1 or the new P. 16/17 course if they had not attained the age of 40 years at the time of the passing of the course. This very letter further provided that the members of the staff in the specified categories who had not attained the age of 40 years on 25-2-1962 may also apply even if they had not passed the prescribed courses because it was reasonably possible for them to pass through the course before attaining the age of 40 years." The petitioners though they had not passed the prescribed course were thus made eligible to apply for being selected for appointment to the posts of Assistant Station Masters and Section Controllers and they did prefer applications. The employees who applied and were held eligible, including the petitioners, were then called for a written examination and a viva voce test. The result of the selection thus conducted was announced on 3rd January 1962 and the petitioners were declared to be successful in the tests held. Out of the persons selected those who had passed the prescribed course prior to the selection being held were promoted and appointed in vacancies in the higher posts. The petitioners, however, after being selected were sent for qualifying in the requisite course. It may be mentioned that the P.1 course by this time had been abolished and instead P. 16 and P. 17 courses had been instituted. Some of the petitioners qualified in the P. 16 course had been instituted. Some of the petitioners qualified in the P.16 course which was an advance and higher course than the P. 1 course while the other petitioners qualified in the P. 1 course. After qualifying in the courses the petitioners were promoted to officiate against permanent vacancies from 1963 on the following dates:

(3.) The respondents have contested the application and have contended that the rules prescribed the bringing of only such persons on the select panel as had passed the prescribed curses known as Course P.1 or P.2 or P. 16 or P. 17 and since the petitioners were empanneled contrary to this provision they have to be de-empanelled. It is further contended that the petitioners' fear of their seniority being disturbed is misplaced inasmuch as the selection of 1965 done in the same manner as the selection of 1962 has also been ordered to be set aside and all persons selected whether in 1961/62 or in 1965 will again have to be re-selected. According to the respondents the petitioners have no right to the posts that they were holding and in any case, the retention of their name on the select-retention of their names on the select-panel is subject to their continued suitability for the post in question.