UNION OF INDIA Vs. NANDKISHORE KHATIB JANGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Heard forthwith.

(2.) RESPONDENT was the original applicant in Original Application No. 592 of 2004 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, Mumbai. The petitioners herein, through the Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedbabad (for short "rrb") had invited applications from eligible persons for vocational training, for giving them employment in the Commercial Department of Western Railway. The respondent appeared for the written examination and having successfully passed the same, was called for an interview and was selected. A communication was sent, dated 1st June, 1999, regarding his provisional selection subject to the respondent being found eligible in all other respects after verification of the various documents produced by him and also found fit in medical check-up by the Railway doctor. Respondent was sent for training for two years after he was found medically fit. Respondent accordingly underwent the training course for two years as prescribed and passed the training course. Respondent was informed by the petitioners by their letter dated 31st October, 2002, that he was considered eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Commercial Clerk/ticket Collector. Respondent, was sent for medical examination before appointment for C-1 category and was found unfit, but declared fit for C-2 category which is the minimum standard required for clerical/ministerial cadre. The respondent made representation for giving him alternate appointment. By communication of 6th October, 2003, he was informed that he could not be appointed in the alternative category.

(3.) AN Original Application came to be filed on account of the failure by the petitioners to give the respondent alternative appointment. It was the case of the respondent that in terms of Railway Board order dated 20th August, 1999, he ought to have been absorbed in alternate clerical category being a direct recruit. It was also pointed out that the petitioners themselves had appointed various other persons in alternate category who were similarly situated. In reply, the petitioners contended that the Circular of the Railway Board dated 29th August, 1999, is not applicable to the respondent as he was appointed to VCRC Scheme wherein HSc students are considered for appointments to the post of Assistant Commercial Clerk, subject to condition prescribed in the said Scheme. The VCRC Scheme does not have a facility of offering alternate appointments as has been clarified by the Railway Board vide its order dated 26th March, 2003. The respondent was offered appointment as A. C. C. , but he was not found fit for C-1 category, which is an essential requirement for the post of A. C. C. The learned Tribunal, after considering the case of the parties noted that what the petitioners are seeking to is to make a distinction between the selection by VCRC and selection for the vacant post where a Panel is made by RRB. The learned Tribunal noted that before the petitioner was sent for training, he was medically examined and found fit for the purpose of training and appointment. The Tribunal found that the respondents ought to be treated as belonging to the direct recruit category and that once he was recommended by RRB for admission to the vocational course on Railway Commercial (2 years job linked course) and after successful completion of the course, the respondent could not be denied the benefit of the Circular dated 20th August, 1999. The Tribunal held that the Railway Board Circular dated 20th August, 1999, does not specifically exclude VCRC Scheme from its ambit and in these circumstances, directed the petitioners to consider the respondent for an alternative employment under the petitioners where the medical fitness category is C-2. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present Petition.