Delhi High Court
Uoi And Anr vs Mohd Arshad Quereshi on 9 February, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2847/2011 & CM 6054/2011
UOI AND ANR ... Petitioners
versus
MOHD ARSHAD QUERESHI ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr R. L. Dhawan
For the Respondent : Ms Meenu Mainee
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA
2381/2009. The respondent had claimed promotion as JE-II (Permanent Way) in
the pay scale of ` 5000-8000 before the Tribunal. The respondent had impugned
the petitioner's order dated 24.06.2008, whereby the said claim of the respondent
was rejected on the ground that the panel, which was for two years, had already
expired.
2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that the respondent was
selected for the post of Permanent Way Supervisor in the pay scale of ` 4500-
7000 through the Railway Recruitment Board and, after undergoing the
prescribed training, he was appointed as such on 02.04.1999 in the Allahabad
Division. Subsequently, on account of cadre restructuring orders, which were
issued by the Railway Board on 09.10.2003, various cadres of Group 'C' and 'D'
were restructured and the upgraded posts of Junior Engineer-II/Permanent Way
Grade ` 5000- 8000 were required to be filled up according to the modified
selection procedure on the basis of scrutiny of the service record and confidential
reports. Thereafter, 48 candidates were found suitable on the basis of the said
modified selection and were placed on the provisional panel, which was declared
on 22.06.2004, in which the respondent was placed at serial No. 34 in the select
list.
3. In terms of paragraph 227 of Volume I of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as the 'said rules'), the Permanent
Way Supervisors of Grade ` 4500-7000 were required to qualify the pre-
promotional course prior to promotion as JE-II/ Permanent Way Grade ` 5000-
8000/-.
4. In view of this requirement, a pre-promotional course was held on
26.07.2004 to 25.09.2004 at Civil Engineering Training Academy, Kanpur.
Unfortunately, the respondent could not qualify in the first attempt and he was
asked to appear in the supplementary examination for Permanent Way Theory.
The said supplementary examination was held on 18.12.2004, but the respondent
failed to qualify.
5. Thereafter, the respondent was again required to attend the pre-
promotional course which was to be held on 20.03.2006 to 19.05.2006 at the said
Academy, which he failed to attend. Finally, the respondent, along with some
others, attended the pre-promotional course at the said academy between
15.12.2006 to 14.02.2007 and, this time, he was declared as having passed and
was also ranked as No.1. However, the respondent was not promoted as JE-II/
Permanent Way Grade ` 5000-8000 since, according to the petitioner, the panel,
which had a life of two years, had, by that time, expired on 22.06.2006.
6. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application of the respondent in an
attempt to harmonize paragraphs 220 and 227 of the said Rules. The said
paragraphs, to the extent relevant, are set out hereinbelow:-
"220. Currency of panels
(a) Panels drawn by the Selection Board and approved by the
competent authority shall be current for two years from the date of
approval by the competent authority or till these are exhausted
whichever is earlier.
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
"227. Promotional Courses
(i) Railways may prescribe requisite promotional courses
passing of which should be pre-condition for further promotion to a
grade in a cadre.
(ii) When employees are booked for promotional course, they
should be relieved immediately.
(iii) No exemption should be given from passing a prescribed
promotional course.
E (NG) 1/76/PM I-219/Pt. dt. . 31-5-77
(iv) In case of posts for which 'Promotional Course' has been
prescribed as a pre-requisite condition to promotion, the employee
may be allowed to avail of three chances to pass the course at the
cost of the Administration. More chances, if any allowed, should be
at the cost of the employee himself."
(underlining added)
7. On a plain consideration of the two paragraphs, it is apparent that the
panel is to be for a period of two years from the date of approval by the
competent authority or till the same is exhausted, whichever is earlier. In the
present case, the panel had not been exhausted. Therefore, it would have been
alive in terms of paragraph 220 for a period of two years up to 22.06.2006.
Insofar as paragraph 227 (iv) is concerned, it is apparent that in case of posts for
which a promotional course has been prescribed as a pre-requisite condition to
promotion, the employee is to be allowed to avail of three chances to pass the
course at the cost of the administration. In fact, it has gone on to say that more
chances can be allowed, but that would be allowed at the cost of the employee
himself. In any event, it is apparent that an employee should have the
opportunity of availing three chances so that he is in a position to clear the
promotional course during the period of his empanelment.
8. Unfortunately, from the facts narrated above, we find that one course was
held between 26.07.2004 and 25.09.2004 and the next course was offered on
20.03.2006 and 19.05.2006 and during the entire year of 2005, no such course
was held. The third course, which was offered by the petitioner, was between
15.12.2006 and 14.02.2007. While it is true that the respondent failed in the first
course and did not attend the second one, he attended the third course and passed
the same. The third course was not offered by the petitioner during the period of
two years from the date from which the panel became operational, that is, from
22.06.2004. This was not because of any fault on the part of the respondent. It
was incumbent upon the petitioner to have offered three chances to the
respondent within the said period of two years, that is, during the life of the
panel, as stipulated in paragraph 220 of the said rules. Not having done so, the
respondent cannot be penalized for the same. The petitioner not having done so,
cannot turn around and refuse the promotion to the respondent on the ground that
the panel is no longer alive.
Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2012
SR
