SHIVRAJ BISWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two applicants namely Shivraj Biswas and Anima Kumari approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for a mandatory order as against the Union of India particularly the Railways to issue them Letter of Appointment as Gangmen with consequential benefits.

(2.) On or about May 5, 1998, Railway Board published an advertisement inviting application for the post of Gang Man at Chakradharpur, South Eastern Railway. The applicants claimed that they appeared before the concerned authorities for physical test as per their call letter having Roll Nos.10312 and 40337 respectively. The result was duly published in newspaper where they found that they were declared selected. They were expecting Call Letters and after waiting for a considerable period of time for the Letters of Appointment, they approached the Tribunal. They also alleged that two persons came to the house of Anima Kumari and demanded money in exchange of Call Letters. They disclosed their identity as Sanjiva Rao and Chandan. When Anima expressed her inability to make payment she was not favoured with Letter of Appointment. On inquiry the applicants came to know that files went missing which caused the delay.

(3.) The respondents filed Affidavit-in-Opposition contesting the claim. According to them, vide notification dated May 5, 1998 the Railway intended to fill up five hundred one posts of Gangman which was subsequently increased to one thousand sixty one posts and ultimately it went up to one thousand eight hundred thirty seven against the existing and anticipated vacancies. A panel was published on May 23, 1999 containing names of four hundred eighty two candidates wherein erroneously the Roll Nos. 10312 and 40337 were printed along with other mistaken roll numbers. Before correction slip could be issued the Chief Vigilance Officer, South Eastern Railway seized all the records pertaining to such appointment after receipt of complaint about irregularities. That panel ultimately expired by efflux of time and as such, no appointment could be given from the said panel. It was further contended that Shivraj never applied for the post and his name was never in the panel. With regard to the allegation of bribery the Railways contended that there was no person by the name of Chandan. The other official Sanjiva Rao Office Superintendent (Recruitment) had already retired much prior to the subject selection process. Considering such facts the Tribunal did not interfere with the selection process. The Tribunal held that the applicants did not acquire any "indefeasible right" against the existing vacancies. The Tribunal observed that even if the applicants" contention was accepted that they were selected in the written test there was no justification to interfere with the respondent's decision not to appoint them for the post.