KAMAL SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.1.2008 (P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal). A further prayer has also been made for quashing orders dated 3.3.2006 (p-2) and 14.7.2007 (P-3) granting promotion to respondent Nos. 7 to 12 on the post of Junior Engineer. Still further quashing of Rule 219 (j) of the Railway Establishment Manual (for brevity, 'the Manual') has been sought being ultra vires of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner after his initial appointment was promoted as Technician Grade-III on 6.1 1.1997 and has been continuing to discharge his duties on the aforementioned post. On 27.1.2005, the Divisional Personnel Officer-respondent No. 6 decided to hold selection for 9 posts of Junior Engineer. The petitioner applied being fully eligible, vide application dated 4.2.2005. Apart from the petitioner, who was working as Technician Grade-III, other personnel working as Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-1, were also eligible. In the hierarchy, the petitioner was at the lowest rung being Technician Grade-III. Another category which was further lower than the category of the petitioner was Electrician. A joint seniority list of all the candidates was prepared vide letter dated 11.6.2005, who had applied for the post of Junior Engineer. Thereafter a written test was held on 3.9.2005. The result of the selection was declared on 5.12.2005. The petitioner has claimed that he stood at Sr. No. 2 in the merit on the basis of written test. In the result prepared by the official respondents, candidates were shown in the list as per seniority in their respective cadres. There was no list prepared as per joint merit. On 3.3.2006, the private respondents were selected against 25% intermediate quota on the basis of seniority being Technician Grade-1. The petitioner made a representation requesting the official respondents to prepare the list as per merit.

(3.) The petitioner filed Original Application, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, rendered in O.A. No. 180-PB of 2006 alongwith many others. The Tribunal has noticed provisions of Rule 219(j) of the Manual, which reads thus :