LEJU R. Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above original petition is filed by the applicants in O.A. No. 19 of 2020 aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: The petitioners were initially appointed as Sweeper cum Porter/Traffic Porter and are now presently working as Pointsman A at level 2 in the Operating Department of Trivandrum Division of Southern Railways. While they were working so Annexure A1 notification was issued by the Railways for filling up of 25 vacancies of Goods Guard against 60 % promotional quota. As per Annexure A1 notification, process of selection consists of written test only and those who qualifies in the test will be subjected to scrutiny of record of service by duly constituted selection committee. The petitioners appeared for the written examination conducted on 14.09.2019 and 21.09.2019.

(3.) Annexure A2 list of qualified candidates was published on 13.12.2019 and in Annexure A2 the petitioners were included as Serial Nos. 4, 49, 59, 70, 92, 95 and 21 respectively. The petitioners contend that even before Annexure A2 eligibility list was published, a list of 25 candidates was published as per Annexure A3 on 05.12.2019 intimating that the persons included in Annexure A3 panel have been selected and placed in the panel for the post of Goods Guard against 60% promotional quota based on merit. All the persons included in Annexure A2 list and Annexure A3 panel were working as Pointsman A. Around 18 out of 25 candidates included in Annexure A3 panel got selected for appointment to the post of Ticket Examiners and were undergoing training by the time Annexure A3 panel was published. Out of the said 18 candidates who were already selected for promotion to Group C post of Ticket Examiners, 8 of them refused to undergo training as provided in Annexure A3 panel, disqualifying themselves for appointment/promotion to the post of Goods Guard. It is the contention of the petitioners that since 8 candidates who were initially included in Annexure A3 panel declined to undergo training and thereby disentitled themselves for appointment to the post of Goods Guard, it is only reasonable and just to include the petitioners in Annexure A3 panel and consider them for promotion/appointment. Even though they made a personal request in this regard before the 3rd respondent, the same was turned down by the 3rd respondent. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench filing O.A. No. 19 of 2020 seeking for a declaration that the petitioners are eligible to be included in Annexure A3 panel.