(1.) Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of Ramesh Chandra Bari (since deceased) through its legal heirs and 13 others (in short 'writ petitioners') is an order dtd. 16/2/2018 passed in Original Application No. 330/00370 of 2015 (Raj Bahadur Singh and 24 others vs. Union of India and 4 others) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short 'Tribunal') whereby the original application preferred by the original applicants/writ petitioners questioning the Screening Test Result dtd. 18/4/2013 declaring them unsuccessful and for a direction to consider the case for regular appointment was rejected.
(2.) The facts of the case as discernible from the records are that the writ petitioners claim to have worked in broken spells as casual labour in Railways while completing more than 120 days of engagement making them eligible for assignment of regular status. According to the writ petitioners, the respondent-railways published a notification in widely circulated newspaper Amar Ujala on 17/12/2005 requiring the ex-casual labours to appear for screening for according regular appointments against clear vacancies. As per the notification dtd. 17/12/2005 those ex-casual labours who were engaged in the Railways for the period of 120 days and at the time of their induction they were not more than 28 years of age were to be considered for regular appointment. The notification further provided that there was a relaxation in the upper age limit for General Category 40 years, OBC 43 years and SC/ST 45 years, the cut off date for determining eligibility was 1/1/2006 and the last date of submission of the application forms was 15/1/2006. The writ petitioners who claimed to be the ex-casual labours who were assigned works in different spells participated in the screening test which was conducted from 10/10/2007 to 16/11/2007 along with others totaling to 359 candidates. The results of the screening test was declared on 10/12/2007 wherein only one candidate namely Avinishi Prasad was declared successful. The writ petitioners being aggrieved against non declaration of their results preferred representations/request letters but the same remained undecided compelling them to prefer OA No. 738 of 2009 and OA No. 741 of 2009 seeking relief for declaration of the result of the screening test and for according regular status of the services, in case, they were successful.
(3.) The aforesaid original applications came to be disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer representation for redressal of the grievances. Subsequently on 10/9/2009 and 7/9/2009 the representations preferred by the writ petitioners came to be rejected.