LAXMINARAIN DEOHARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions being interlinked and inter-connected were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. In W. P. No. 3297/99 the challenge is to the grant of catering licences relating to Platform Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the Itarasi Railway Station on various grounds, whereas the challange in W. P. No. 4224/99 is on a limited spectrum.

(2.) Before the crux in both the writ petitions is uncurtained, it is necessary, nay, requisite, to unfurl and unfold the factual backdrop as that portrays a different scene altogether. It is well known that the Railway is a large organisation and the Itarasi Railway Station is one of the biggest junction and caters to public at large. To maintain the quality of supply of food and to get the best caterer the railway administration published an advertisement on 26-9-1997 in National Mail Bhopal inviting applications for award of a catering licence for stalls to be situated at platform Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5. Many applications submitted their applications with necessary documents and an interview was held in respect of the candidates in question but one Robin Jyothiraj James could not receive the letter of interview on due date for which he visited this Court in W. P. No. 83/99. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon persual of the documents this Court directed as under :--"So far as the petitioner is concerned, he approached this Court, by means of the present petition, on 5th February, 1999 and we consider the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is entitled for being interviewed so to have opportunity of participation in the process relating to the catering licence. So far as the candidates who have not approached this Court till today are concerned, they are not entitled for being called for interview, as it is a settled principle of law that those who sleeps over their right they are not entitled for the sympathy of the Court.In view of above, we direct the respondent No.1, Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial Branch), Bhopal for arranging for the interview of the petitioner who shall appear before the respondent No.1 along with the application duly accompanied by the certified copy of this order on 15th February, 1999 during the hours 10 to 12 A. M. in his office and he would be given in writing a date, time and place for interview and the entire process regarding selection of catering stall licence at Itarsi Railway Junction shall be finalised by the concerned persons by 15th of March, 1999 without fail and a copy of the finalised proceeding shall be filed before this Court on 22nd March, 1999."After this direction was issued, the railway administration conducted an interview in respect of Robin Jyoti James. The Selection Committee which was constituted in accordance with the policy in vogue did not find Robin Jyoti James suitable. It is worth noting that platforms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but the Committee did not find anyone suitable for the platform No.1 as well for the platform Nos. 4 and 5. At this juncture, certain complaints were sent to the Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board. As a result of which a direction was given for review of the matter and accordingly, a Senior Grade Administrative Officers Committee was constituted and the selection was made. The said selection committee selected respondent No.3, Smt. Kanti Arya in respect of the plateform Nos. 4 and 5 and Smt. Suchita Uike, respondent No.4 in respect of the plateform No.1. This selection is the subject-matter of challenge in W. P. No. 3297/99. As far as W. P. No. 4224/99 is concerned the challenge is to the non-selection of the petitioner therein at the first instance.

(3.) Before I advert to deal with the various documents, minutes of discussion brought on record and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I would deal with W. P. No. 4224/99. Mr. J. P. Sanghi, Mr. S. K. Mukherjee and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents stated at the threshold that they have not filed any return. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the return would be necessary as he has the minutes of the Committee. Mr. S. K. Gangele, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been erroneolusly adjudicated by the Selection Committee on the first occasion and, therefore, he has the right to challenge the same.