GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY MADRAS Vs. D JAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. No. 1028 of 1998 is filed by the Union of India and also by the General Manager, Southern Railway and, other Officers of the southern Railway. O. P. No. 4278 of 1998 is filed by respondents 2 to 10 in O. P. No. 1028 of 1998. Original Petitions are filed challenging the legality of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, hereinafter called the "tribunal", in O. A. No. 38 of 1996 by which Tribunal quashed Exts. P4 and P5 in O. P. No. 1028 of 1998 (Annexure A14 and A17 in O. A.)and declared that first respondent herein was senior to respondents 2 to 10 in the post of Air Condition Khalasis and entitled to get promotion to the post of air Condition Coach Attendant in preference to respondents 2 to 10 from an earlier date. Railway Administration was directed to draw up and finalise the seniority list of Air Condition Khalasis first and then that of the Air condition Coach Attendant in accordance with law and to give consequential promotion to the first respondent and all other benefits. O. A. was allowed with costs of Rs. 1, 000/ -. Some observations were also made against the officers of the Railway Administration. Aggrieved by the order mentioned above, these Writ petitions are filed. We narrate the facts as we get in O. P. No. 1028 of 1998. First respondent was Initially engaged as a substitute Khalasi in Electrical department on 24-1-1984. He was given temporary status on 23-5-1984 , and later redeployed to Air Condition Wing of Electrical Department from 5-6-1989. He was absorbed as Air condition Khalasi against a regular group D post from 6-9-1993. Respondents 2 to 10 joined in the Air condition Wing on redeploymenton 11-4-1986 and they were regularly absorbed as Air Condition Khalasis with effect from 22-4-1991. According to the first respondent, he passed SSLC and ITI examinations and as per order dated 29-8-1985 he was posted in the Air condition Wing with effect from 5-6-198 9. According to him, respondents 2 to 10 have not passed SSLC examination which the minimum educational qualification prescribed for absorption in Air condition Cadre as Air Condition Khalasis and respondents 2, 4, 7 and 8 have not even passed VIIIth Standard. According to him, had the department considered the basic qualification, they would not have been considered as they were not eligible to be considered for the post of Air Condition Khalasis. However, those persons were absorbed as Air Condition Khalasis as per order dated 25-2-199 1. According to him, first respondent is entitled to get seniority in the Air Condition department as Air Condition Khalasi with effect from 5-6-1989. We notice that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Air Condition khalasi was a pass in SSLC examination as borne out from the orders dated 4-7-1986, 16-8-1985, and 19-8-1985 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer. It, is true that first respondent had passed SSLC and ITI examinations, while respondent 2 to 10 had not passed SSLC. However, Chief Personnel Officer with the approval of the competent authority issued an order dated 21-3-1990 stating as follows : (i) Regular Khalasis working in TL and Power side, who have got the requisite SSLC qualification and have volunteered to come to AC section. (ii) Regular Khalasis in TL and Power side with and above but not SSLC and who volunteered to come to AC section, and had put in 3 years of service in the AC section at one time or the other, as a one time exemption. (iii) CPC Khalasis being empanelled with SSLC qualification volunteering to work in AC section. (iv) CPC Khalasis who are being empanelled and who have passed 8th standard and above but not SSLC and who have put in more than 3 years of service in AC section as one time exemption. Note : The 3 years of service mentioned above includes service as temporary status Khalasis in the AC side. " It is also stated in the above-mentioned order that no further relaxation will be given and that the above-mentioned order was issued with the approval of the competent authority. This order was later relaxed by the same authority in respect of respondents 2, 8 and 9 who did not possess the minimum qualification of a pass in VIIIth standard. But they had put in four years of satisfactory service which is evident from Ext. P3 order herein. Air condition Khalasis were later promoted as Air Condition Coach Attendant and respondents 2 to 10 were promoted as per office order dated 30-10-1994. According to counsel for the first respondent, Chief Personnel officer has no jurisdiction to issue various orders of exemption referred to hereinbefore. According to him, first respondent was the only qualified person to be promoted to the post of Air Condition Khalasi and other persons were unqualified with the result first respondent will get seniority over the contesting respondents. He, therefore, sought a direction before the Tribunal to promote to the post of Air Condition Coach Attendant in preference to contesting respondents and to finalise his seniority accordingly and to give consequential benefits. Counsel for the petitioners contended that Chief personnel Officer has got jurisdiction to grant exemption in appropriate cases and orders were issued by him with the approval of the competent authority. Exemption was granted on genuine grounds, which are borne out from the exemption orders. Counsel submitted that various observations made by the tribunal against the railway officials are quite unwarranted and without any basis. We notice that the original order laying down the qualification Itself was issued by the Chief Personnel Officer and the same officer in consonance with the agreement of the Chief Electrical Engineer jointly decided to relax the qualification vide Exts. P2 and P3. Facts reveal that those orders were passed by the Chief Personnel Officer with the concurrence of higher authorities. We have no reason to think otherwise. It may be noted that contesting respondents entered service earlier than the first respondent. For example, second respondent was engaged as substitute Electrical khalasi on 6-12-1980 and he was given temporary status on 6-4-1981. He was appointed as substitute AC Khalasi on 11-4-1986 and he was regularised in that dost with effect from 26-10-1988. He was later promoted as Air Condition Coach, attendant on 4-11-1994. Whereas the first respondent was engaged as substitute electrical Khalasi on 24-1-1984, and Was given temporary status from 23-5-1984. First respondent was appointed as substitute Air Condition Khalasi on 5-6-1989 and he was regularised in that post with effect from 6-9-1993. Service put in by the contesting respondents and their experience were the factors which weighed with the Railway Administration for relaxation of educational qualification. Since we have already found that Chief Personnel Officer has got power to pass relaxation orders in consultation with higher authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning shown in those orders to grant relaxation of educational qualification. We have gone through various documents produced before this Court as well as the order of the Tribunal in detail. We, fail to see in what manner Officer of the Railway Administration tried to mi lead the Tribunal or suppressed relevant facts. On a direction given by the tribunal, in fact, Officers of the Railway Administration have produced all the documents and also filed additional reply affidavit; While submitting additional reply-statement, by an inadvertment oversight, they omitted to add viiith pass and only stated VIIIth standard. How ever, it is relevant to note that Ext. P2 order was produced along with the reply-affidavit, which would indicate otherwise. We are not prepared to say that Officers of the Railway administration have deliberately tried to mislead the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that serious observations are made by the Tribunal without hearing the officer concerned. We are of the view that such observations are unwarranted. In the above-mentioned circumstances, we are of the view that Tribunal has gone wrong in setting aside the orders of exemption passed by the Chief Personnel Officer granting exemption to respondents 2 to 10 and also making serious comments against officers of the department, and also awarding costs. Under such circumstances the impugned order is set aside and Original petitions are allowed. Petitions allowed. . .