GAUTAM DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 16. 10. 2006 passed by the Tribunal in R. A. No. 5 of 2006 in O. A. No. 543 of 2005 and O. A. 408 of 2006 filed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the said order.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows:- The applicant/4th respondent was promoted as against SC vacancy by the second petitioner as per the order dated 9. 3. 2004. One Smt. P. Neela approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 427 of 2004 against her non selection in the panel dated 26. 2. 2004. Consequent to the quashing of the Panel dated 26. 2. 2004 by the Tribunal in O. A. 427 of 2004, a second panel dated 29. 3. 2005 was drawn on 21. 4. 2005. Since the fourth respondent had held the post for more than 2 years from 9. 3. 2004, he was allowed to continue as Chief Office Superintendent vide Office order dated 21. 4. 2005 and panel dated 28. 5. 2005 against a vacancy, which subsequently occurred in December 2004. Subsequently, one vacancy occurred in February, 2005 due to the retirement of Sri. V. Narayanan and a selection process was proposed for this vacancy. At this stage, one Maheswarlal Babu approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 543 of 2005 stating that filling up of one vacancy in Chief Office Superintendent by fourth respondent deprived him of an opportunity to appear for selection, where three candidates were called for only one vacancy. The Tribunal quashed the order empanelling the fourth respondent and directed that he has to be subjected to the selection process. Accordingly, promotion order issued in favour of fourth respondent was cancelled and he was reverted as Office Superintendent Gr. I. Subsequently, fourth respondent was promoted on ad hoc basis as Chief Office Superintendent against an existing vacancy as his juniors have already been promoted on ad hoc basis. An alert notice was issued to the eligible employees including the fourth respondent for selection to the post of Chief Office Superintendent on 15. 3. 2006. A letter dated 22. 3. 2006 was also communicated, intimating the date of written test to be held on 7. 4. 2006. At this stage fourth respondent approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 408 of 2006, seeking interim relief restraining the official respondents subjecting him to written test. However, the Tribunal passed an order restraining the official respondents from reverting the fourth respondent from the post of Chief Office Superintendent. Subsequently, the fourth respondent filed R. A. No. 5 of 2006 in O. A. No. 543 of 2005 and O. A. No. 408 of 2006 seeking injunction restraining the official respondents from calling him for modified selection again for promotion to the post of Chief Office Superintendent, as he was already selected for the SC vacancy meant for 2003, pending disposal of the application. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed an order observing that the Office Order dated 21. 4. 2005 in so far as the exclusion of the fourth respondent from being adjusted in the SC vacancy is illegal and consequently O. A. 408 of 2006 is allowed as prayed for. Based on the order passed by the Tribunal in the above R. A. , Sri. Pughazendhi who was selected against SC point have been shown against UR and the name of the fourth respondent was included in the panel against SC point. The petitioner being the last UR candidate in the panel was deleted from the panel since Sri. Pughazendhi who was originally selected against SC point has been shown against UR point.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent it is submitted that initially, based on the cadre of restructuring orders dated 9. 10. 2003, a panel consisting of 6 employees was published wherein Smt. P. Neela, the senior-most employee did not find a place. Based on the Tribunal's order in O. A. No. 427 of 2004, filed by Smt. P. Neela for her non-inclusion in the panel, a revised panel including the name of Smt. P. Neela and deleting the name of Shri. Rajendran was published vide panel dated 29. 3. 2005. The Tribunal passed orders in this O. A. to include the name of Shri. Rajendran against the only SC vacancy and Sri. Pughazhendi shown against the UR vacancy. As a result of implementation of the orders in this O. A. , the petitioner's name had to be deleted from the revised panel dated 19. 12. 2006. Hence, the revision of panels three times was as per the orders of the judiciary and not an irregularity committed by the Railway Department.