MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madanlal, the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is an employee of the Northern Railway. He joined the service in 1951 as basic carpenter in the Northern Railway Workshop at Jodhpur. In 1956 he was promoted as skilled carpenter and was working in the carpenter shop. By circular, dated 16th November, 1967, the Works Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur, invited applications from skilled carpenters who were conversant with and interested with the fitting work of skilled fitters and who were desirous to have their designation changed from skilled carpenters to that of skilled fitters (Carriage and Wagon). In the said circular, it was stated that the applicants would be trade tested for skilled fitter (Carriage and Wagon) trade before their change is affected and that the request once exercised and accepted by the Administration would be final and they would in future, have their avenue of promotion in fitters (C. & W.) trade. In response to the aforesaid circular, the petitioner submitted an application and after passing the required trade test, the petitioner was designated as skilled fitter (C. & W.) by order dated 7th Feb., 1968, with immediate effect. The combined provisional seniority list of all skilled (C. & W.) fitters of Northern Railway, Workshop, Jodhpur was issued by the Works Manager on 18th Dec., 1968 and in the said provisional seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 3. By order dated 28th Oct., 1972, the petitioner was provisionally confirmed in the trade of Fitter (C & W.) with effect from 1st Oct., 19/2. By order dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner along with 14 other persons, who were earlier working as skilled carpenters and who had been designated as skilled fitters C. & W ), were re-designated as carpenters and were reassigned their original seniority in the carpenters trade from the date of their entrance in the skill trade and the names of these persons were deleted from the provisionally seniority list dated 18th December. 1968 issued in respect of skilled fitters (C. & W.). As a result of the aforesaid notification dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner stood re-transferred to the carpenters shop where he was working as skilled carpenter prior to his transfer to the carriage and wagon shop in pursuance of the order dated 7th Feb., 1968. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10th July, 1973, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that while he was working as fitter (C. & W.), 108 Titters (C. & W.) were called for interview/for promotion to the post of Ministry (C. & W.) and that on the basis of the said interview respondents Nos. 3 to 8, who were junior to the petitioner in the provisional seniority list dated 18th Dec., 1968 for skilled (C. & W ) fitters, were promoted as Ministries (C. & W.) and that the petitioner, even though he was senior-to the said respondents according to the seniority list dated 18th Dec., 1968, was not even called for the said interview. In this regard the petitioner has further submitted that amongst the persons who were called for interview for promotion to the post of Ministry (C. & W.) included Shri Ladhu Ram, who was a skilled carpenter like the petitioner and who had been designated as fitter (C & W) alongwith the petitioner by order dated 7th Feb, 1968. The case of the petitioner is that the promotion of respondents Nos 3 to 8 as Ministries (C & W) was in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In his writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification dated 10th July, 1973, on the ground that by the aforesaid order the future chances of promotion of the petitioner have been adversely affected and that the said order could not have been passed without affording to the petitioner to an opportunity of being heard and that such an opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner before the order dated 10th July, 1973 was passed. In the writ petition the petitioner has further submitted that the order dated 10th July, 1973, re-designating the petitioner as skilled carpenter is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for the reason that persons who were junior to the petitioner in the carpenter shop had been promoted as Ministries during the period the petitioner was working as Fitter in the carriage and wagon section and that as a result of the impugned order, the petitioner has suffered in the matter of his promotion at both the places, i.e in the carriage and wagons shop as well as in the carpenters shop In support of his submission aforesaid, the petitioner has stated that respondents Nos. 9 toll, were junior to hira in the carpenters trade but respondent No. 9 has been promoted to the post of Ministry and respondents Nos. 10 and 11 had been promoted as Highly Skilled Grade-II.

(3.) In the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from carpenter trade to titter (C & W) trade as a result of the order dated 7th Feb., 1968 had been made on provisional basis and that after the petitioner and other skilled carpenters bad been transferred as fitters (C & W), the staff of (C & W) fitter trade had represented through the recognised unions that on account of transfer of these carpenters as C & W fitters, their future advancement had been blocked and that taking into consideration the aforesaid representation, it was decided by the Competent Authority, in consultation with the staff representatives, that the carpenters, including the petitioner, would be re-transferred to the carpenters trade and that they would have their seniority and future advancement in their original trade i.e. carpenters and that of the order dated 10th July, 1973, was passed in consequence of the aforesaid decision. As regards the promotions which were made on the posts of Ministry (C. & W.) during the period the petitioner was working as fitter (C. & W.), it has been submitted on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that in view of the representation of the staff of C. & W. fitter trade against carpenters being designated as C. & W. fitters the issue was under consideration of the Railway Administration, and therefore, the names of the petitioner and other carpenters who had been designated as fitters (C. & W.) were not included in the list of 108 C. & W. fitters who were called for interview for promotion to the posts of Ministry (C. & W.). In the reply, respondents Nos. I & 2 have further stated that the names of Laxman and Ladhuram, who like the petitioner were designated from carpenters trade to C. & W. fitter trade, had been erroneously included in the said list of 108 C. & W. fitters and that when the said error came to the notice, the aforesaid two employees were not tested for the post of Ministry. With regard to the complaint of the petitioner about the promotion of persons junior to him in the carpenter trade during the period he was working as fitter (C. & W.), it has been submitted in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents Nos 1 and 2 that the posts against which the junior persons, viz., respondents Nos. 9 to 11, were promoted were ex-cadre posts and that the petitioner was also eligible to apply for those posts but he did not do so inspite of the circulars, inviting applications for the said purpose and that the promotion of persons junior to the petitioner on those ex-cadres posts did not in any way affect the inter se-seniority of the petitioner and the said respondents and that those persons who are serving on the ex-cadre posts would remain junior to the petitioner on the carpenter shop floor.