CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD Vs. R K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2752/2010. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the respondent's said Original application and has directed as under:- "8. For the reasons stated within, the Original Application succeeds. The Respondents are directed (i) to convene a Review Selection Committee to consider eligible 1980 batch IRSE officers including the Applicant for the sixth vacant slot of DRM; (ii) in case the Applicant gets selected for the sixth slot, he shall be posted as DRM; and (iii) the Respondents would comply with the directions (i) and (ii) within 9 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There is no order as to costs."

(2.) THE respondent is an IRSE (Indian Railway Service of Engineers) Officer of the 1980 batch and was working as a Chief Track Engineer at the time of the filing of the Original Application and is now working as a Senior Deputy General Manager, Western Railways in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG). The grievance of the respondent was that he had been denied the opportunity of being considered and posted as a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), whereas five of his batch-mates had been posted as DRMs. The respondent filed the said Original Application seeking a prayer to direct the petitioner to post him as a DRM at the next available opportunity. It is in that context that the Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties and examining the case, made the abovementioned directions.

(3.) WE find that the Tribunal has essentially been guided by the understanding that the respondent's non-selection to the DRM post would deprive him of his future prospects for being considered for the post of a General Manager as he would be allegedly lacking the required service experience as a DRM. It is for this reason, that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that non-consideration of the respondent for the sixth slot for the DRM posting had positively prejudiced him and it is because of this that the Tribunal came to the following conclusion:-