Mahi Lal vs Central Administrative Tribunal ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 534 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16579 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Mahi Lal
 
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kishore,Bhoopendra Nath Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govind Saran,S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

It appears that the petitioner has claimed promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer against 70% quota.

Learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the post was for the Safety category. The petitioner belongs to S.C. category. The petitioner claimed relaxation in qualifying marks and submitted that if the relaxation would have been allowed, the petitioner would have been selected. The Tribunal relying upon the Railway Board Circular No. B2-E (SCT)/41/6 dated 15.11.1983 stated that the said circular lays down that Group 'B' post in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineer, Signal and Telecommunication Engineering and Transportation and Traffic category would come under the purview of Safety category and the erstwhile scheme for promotion of the best amongst the failed will not apply while filling-up the reserved category. The Rule also clarifies that in respect of other than safety category posts, the qualifying marks would be set as 3/5 of the qualifying marks prescribed for general category candidates.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to demonstrate anything to the contrary referred in the order. He, however, submitted that let the counsel for the Railway be asked to produce the said circular and the Rules.

Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, is directed to produce the Railway Board Circular No. B2-E (SCT)/41/6 dated 15.11.1983 and the related Rules.

List after four weeks.

Order Date :- 3.4.2014

OP