BALDEV RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Railway Administration conducted a single promotional process in 2004 by clubbing together all existing vacancies from 2000. Such selection process was contrary to Rule 2.4.1 which mandates the Railway Authority to consider vacancies in respect of each year and prepare a separate list for each year vacancy to find out the suitable candidates to come within the zone of consideration in that particular year, such selection process was challenged by one Birdly Ford Passah in his writ petition being W.P. 13966(W)/2004. The appellant herein being unsuccessful in the said selection process also filed a separate writ petition being W.P. 14585(W)/2004. Both the writ petitions were heard one after the other. In the case of Birdly Ford it was argued that since, he was entitled to be considered for 2000 vacancy the confidential report available prior thereto should have been taken into consideration and if those were taken into consideration he would certainly come out successfully in the said promotional process. The Railway Authority on the other hand contended before His Lordship that since Birdly Ford, participated in the selection process such selection process could not be assailed at his instance after being unsuccessful in the said process. The learned Single Judge by His well -reasoned judgment came to a finding that the promotional process adopted by the Railway Authority was defective, unscientific, unsustainable and was liable to be quashed. Despite observing as such, His Lordship did not quash the impugned selection process as all the beneficiaries of the impugned process being the promotees were not made parties in the said writ petition. His Lordship directed the Railway Administration to consider Birdly Ford following the Rule 2.4.1 in the available eighteen vacant posts coupled with a direction in case he comes out successfully he must be given normal benefit from the day when he was entitled to be considered for promotion. Neither Birdly Ford nor the Railway Administration preferred any appeal, and the said judgment attained finality.

(2.) IN the, present case the learned Single Judge held that the appellant being similarly circumstanced his writ petition should also be governed by the judgement in the case of Birdly Ford. His Lordship gave the following directions;

(3.) MR . Molay Basu, learned senior counsel, appearing in support of the appeal, contends that the appellant was not similarly circumstanced as he was a Scheduled Caste candidate and he was to be separately treated in terms of Rule 2.3.2 where special consideration was provided for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Mr. Basu has, however, admitted that this factor was not drawn attention of learned Single Judge at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.