ALOK ROY Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways.

(2.) Petitioner assails the order dated 18.09.2013, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 239 of 2007, by which while hearing the petition of three other applicants, who had moved the Tribunal and were aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Superintendent in the E.C. Railways, the Tribunal has set aside the promotion of the petitioner, who was impleaded as Respondent No. 11 in the said O.A.

(3.) The facts of the case is that one Sita Ram Sharma and two others, who were working as Rajbhasha Assistant Grade-I in E.C. Railway, Hajipur were aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Rajbhasha Superintendent under the general quota. The Department vide notification dated 10/12.01.2006 had notified three vacancies under the general quota apart from other vacancies under the different reserved categories. On representation filed by the applicants and others the Department issued another notification dated 18.05.2006 showing five vacancies under the general quota. On further representation yet another notification dated 20.09.2006 was issued showing six vacancies under the general quota. It may be noted that the petitioner had been impleaded as respondent no. 11 in the said O.A. and belonged to the general quota of vacancies, with which we are concerned at the present. The three applicants alleged that having participated in the selection procedure and having done well in the examination were confident of selection, but instead juniors were promoted to the post of Rajbhasha Superintendent. The notification dated 20.09.2006 specified that the examination was, thus, to be conducted on 06.10.2006 and a candidate could be allowed to appear in a subsequent written examination on 17.10.2006 (if he was absent for reason beyond his control i.e. only on railway medical certificate and administrative exigencies).