UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJU GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (Union of India and others) have filed this application challenging the order dtd. 21/3/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata in O.A. no. 1676 of 2017 wherein a speaking order dtd. 20/3/2017 passed by the petitioner authorities was quashed and the matter was remanded to the same authority to issue an appropriate order in the light of RBE prevailing as on the date of notification (14/12/2010) untrammeled by the subsequent notification of 2014 (RBE no. 06 of 2014 dtd. 10/1/2014). The petitioner's case against the said order of the tribunal is that Railway Board's instruction vide RBE 06/2014, dtd. 10/1/2014 was issued before the publication of the final panel in respect of Employment Notice No.-0110 dtd. 14/12/2010. As such, the notification of 2014 is applicable in the respondent's case. It is the further case of the petitioner that merely passing the written examination and qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test does not create any right to have an appointment unless otherwise there is a blatant illegality in the selection process.

(2.) The respondents/petitioners case before the Tribunal was that he was an applicant for appointment in Group D post in respect of Employment Notice No.-0110 dtd. 14/12/2010. He was declared successful in the written test and also Physical Efficiency/Endurance Test. On successful completion of PET the applicant was asked to submit original documents for verification and the same was duly verified by the respondent authorities. The respondent's name was not in the panel of selected candidates in respect of the panel prepared against notified vacancies of EN No.-0110 dtd. 14/12/2010. Further case of the respondent is that the Railway Board issued a circular being RBE No. 121 of 2005 regarding procedure for recruitment of Group D staff of Indian Railways. Clause 7.8 of the said circular lays down:

(3.) From the records it is apparent that the respondent cleared both the written test and the PET examination and as such he had a legitimate expectation of being called for the medical examination as per clause 7.8 of the Circular no. 121 of 2005. But the respondent was not called for the medical examination.