UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27-11-1998 in O.A.No.891 of 1996, wherein, the Tribunal, while holding that the selection of the third respondent as 'Assistant Law Officer-Group B post' in 'SC Category' was illegal, directed that his selection should be held to be in the 'unreserved vacancy' on his own merit, that the selection of fourth respondent in the unreserved vacancy was not proper, that however, since the fourth respondent had retired from service during the pendency of O.A., it did not call for any disturbance, that the second respondent should be empanelled in the reserved vacancy if she is otherwise qualified according to her seniority if no other schedule caste candidate had secured higher marks than that of the second respondent and directed the petitioners to post the second respondent from the date the third respondent was selected for the seniority to be reckoned for all other purposes. The Tribunal, however, held that the second respondent would not be entitled for the salary of that post till she actually assumes charge.

(2.) The petitioners, namely, the Union of India and the Chief Personnel Officer of the Southern Railway, would contend that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with inasmuch as, the same is not inconsonance with the Rules Governing the Promotion of Subordinate Staff.

(3.) Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners drew our attention to Rules 204.8 and 204.9 of the relevant Rules, as well as, the marks obtained by different candidates who participated in that selection including respondents 2 to 4, and contended that by virtue of Rule 204.8 and 204.9 and in view of the fact that the roster point as stood as on the date of the selection required the filling up of the reserved post in the first instance, the third respondent happened to be a reserved candidate being the senior most in the 'Group C' category was selected in that vacancy which necessitated the filling up of the next unreserved point from among the other candidates. According to the Senior counsel, inasmuch as, the fourth respondent stood second in the list was selected in the unreserved category. The learned Senior counsel further contended that since none of the candidates including the third respondent secured 80% marks and above in the gradation, there was no scope for considering either the third respondent or any other candidate out side the roster point in order to hold that the selection of the third respondent was to be treated as one in the unreserved category. The learned Senior counsel, therefore, contended that the order of the Tribunal in having interfered with the selection in the manner it has done was liable to be interfered with.