UNION OF INDIA Vs. PROVAT KUMAR KOLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conduct of the respondents is not above-board. The respondents were changing their lawyer on one pretext or the other. The third one Mr. Partha Ghosh, learned Counsel appeared before us on September 6, 2011, when he prayed for leave to retire in absence of instruction. At that juncture, Ms. Shyamali Banerjee, learned Counsel appeared before us and sought leave to intervene in both the matters on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, Mr. Ghosh was relieved and Ms. Banerjee was given time to get herself ready. Today, when the matters are called on, Ms. Banerjee is also having the identical experience. She submits that the respondents are not approaching her. She has not been given Vokalatnama. Hence, she is not in a position to accept the papers from Mr. Ghosh, however, Mr. Ghosh is ready with all papers to be handed over to the lawyer, although his remuneration is outstanding. The matters are being adjourned from time to time to accommodate the respondents, but the respondents are not serious about the matter. Hence, we are compelled to take up the hearing in their absence. We have heard Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Railways/applicants.

(2.) On perusal of the pleadings including the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal disposed of both the applications being OA 1470 of 2010 and OA 1471 of 2010 by a common judgment and order dated July 13, 2010. The facts would depict that the respondents were working as Technician Grade I in Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. In pursuance of a notification dated April 29, 2006 the applicants before the Tribunal applied for the post of Apprentice Mechanic Inter stage (Mechanical). They participated in the selection process; however, they were not successful. They contended before the Tribunal that they secured higher marks than those empanelled candidates. According to them, their names were omitted and the persons having higher pay scale, although secured lesser marks, were included in the panel. They relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Jayram reported in 1996 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 537. The Tribunal considered the Apex Court decision and allowed the application by observing that the respondents were similarly circumstanced with the petitioners in the case before Punjab & Haryana Bench, wherein an identical issue was disposed of vide judgment and order dated April 9, 2008. The Tribunal ultimately, quashed the panel and directed the Railways to redraw the panel strictly according to merit, keeping in view of the amended provision of paragraph 219.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Railway authority has come up before us by filing the instant applications.