IQBAL SINGH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two civil writ petitions Nos. 133 of 1970 and 134 of 1970. They raise a common question of law. They came up for consideration before a learned Single I Judge of this Court and were referred by his lordship to a Division Bench and the Division Bench by order dated 12th May, 1971 has considered it fit to refer them to a still larger Bench subject to the approval of Hon'bic the Chief Justice. In this way these petitions have been placed before us for disposal.

(2.) The writ petitions have been opposed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and a counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri M. P. Mathur, Senior Personnel Officer of the Northern Railway. The position explained in the counter-affidavit is that to form a penal of 21 persons for the post of Chief Enquiry and Reservation Clerks, a selection was held, as a result of which 21 persons were selected. A provisional panel announcing the names of 18 persons was declared on 7th January, 1969; the name of one person was declared on 14th March, 1969 and the names of the remaining two could not be announced on account of certain pending enquiries; that 21 vacancies had been counted against which 84 persons including 4 Scheduled Castes were eligible in order of seniority and they were called for selection, lqbal Singh and Gobind Ram (petitioners before this Court) were at item Nos. 72 and 80 respectively in the seniority list of eligible candidates. J he 21 vacancies that were counted were 11 actual vacancies and 6 anticipated vacancies and 25 per cent thereof were 4. It is further explained that on receipt of a complaint against the selection, the matter was investigated and it was found that there were only 18 vacancies, namely 11 actual and 3 anticipated and 25 per cent thereof were 4. making a total of 18 and in view of 18 vacancies, only 72 persons in order of seniority, that is to say, 4 Scheduled Castes and 68 others were to be called for selection and as such only the first 68 senior most employees were to be considered. Since lqbal Singh and Gobind Ram were at serial Nos. 72 and 80, they could not be called for selection. The matter was brought to the notice of the General Manager, being the authority next above the authority which had approved the panel issued on 7th January, 1969 for deletion of the names of the petitioners and after obtaining the approval of the General Manager, the names D of the petitioners were removed from the panel and they were reverted to their lower grade of Rs. 150-240 vide letter dated 22nd January, 1970. It is further stated that out of 18 persons placed on the panel, the names of 16 had been retained on the provisional panel and the cases of two other selected persons were under consideration and the vacancies caused by the reversion of lqbal Singh and Gobind Ram petitioners to the lower grade were filled up temporarily. The other material facts are admitted that the petitioners had been setcclcJ and that they had been reverted by the impugned notice. The grounds pleaded in the writ petitions are controverted and it is urged that owing to the shrinkage of the panel, it was found that the petitioneis were not entitled to hold the posts and the reversion was not arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal or inala fide. In the counter-affidavit, there is a further reference about the reservation of the quota for the Scheduled Castes and the mistake occunmg, therdn, but. the same is not material for purposes of the decision of the writ petitions. the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavits in reply and they have controverted the contentions of the respondents. In particular, they have made a reference to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court where the then Assistant Director (Establishment) Railway Board, filed an affidavit dated 24th April, 1967 in which the break up of 21 vacancies was given as 14 existing, 3 anticipated and 25 per cent unforeseen, making a total of 21 and it is, therefore, asserted that the allegation about a mistake occurring in the number of existing vacancies I was not correct. It is further asserted that assuming there were 18 vacancies, still the petitioners might have been called for interview and had rightly been called and they had been classed as "outstanding" in the selection test.

(3.) In this context, reference may be made to paragraph 217 with B regard to the currency of the panel which reads as under:--