Delhi High Court
Umesh Dutt Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 January, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 40/2014 & C.M.No.66/2014
% Date of decision: 6th January, 2014
UMESH DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.D.Chauhan and Mr.Arun
K.Chauhan and Mr.M.S.Negi,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh,
Advocates for R-1 and R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (oral)
1. The petitioner in the instant case has assailed the order dated 24th
November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing
the O.A.No.2995/2010 as well as the order dated 27th February, 2012
whereby the Review Application No.59/2012 was rejected.
2. The petitioner has assailed his non-selection for the post of JE-II
(25% LDCE Quota) notified by the respondent on 7th January, 2010.
The petitioner had undertaken the written examination on 15 th June,
2010. He was not found meritorious in the result declared on 13th July,
2010. The respondents however favourably considered the petitioner's
representation dated 19th July, 2010 and corrected the select list by a letter
dated 21st July, 2010 whereby the petitioner's name was included in the list
of candidates who had qualified the written examination. The respondents
declared that inclusion did not tantamount as a selection.
In the final select list issued on 27st July, 2010, three persons, other
than the petitioner, were declared successful.
3. This select list was challenged by the petitioner before the Central
Administrative Tribunal by O.A.No.2955/2010 on the sole ground that he
possessed a Diploma in Rail Transport and Management had as well as
Diploma in Electrical Engineering (having cleared it in the first class), as
additional qualifications. Based on these certificates, the petitioner claimed
that he was entitled to get additional 20 marks under the heading
"Personality Address, Leadership and Academic/Technical Qualifications"
in terms of the circular being RBE No.55/86. The petitioner placed reliance
on the following extract of RBE No.55/86:
"The question of granting weightage to the Diploma
secured by the Railway Employees from the Institute of Rail
Transport in the matter of selections held for promotion to
selection post in the Group C has been under consideration of
the Board for some time. In terms of extant rules, selection of a
Railway servant for promotion to the posts classified as
selection depends on the marks secured by him under various
heads one of which is Personality, Address, Leadership and
Academic/Technical qualification" for which 20% marks have
been allotted. It has now been decided that in respect of
selections for promotion to Selection posts, Diploma of Institute
of Rail Transport will be taken into account, along with any
other Technical/Academic qualifications in awarding marks
under the heading "Personality, Address, leadership and
Academic/Technical Qualifications".
4. The respondents countered the petitioner's claim pointing out that
after the recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission, merger of
grades was effected and there was revised classification and mode of filling
up of non-gazetted posts. It was pointed out that the post of JE-II was
covered under Sl.No.18 for filling up vacancies as existed on 31 st August,
2009. The procedure for holding selection to the post classified as
"Selection". Pursuant to the Railway Board's letter dated 22nd March, 2006,
the heading "Personality Address, leadership and Academic/Technical
Qualifications" stands deleted. The directive dated 22nd March, 2006 reads
as follows:
"The matter has been carefully considered by the Ministry of
Railways. It has been decided to altogether do away with the
heading "Personality Address, Leadership and
Academic/Technical Qualifications" from the selection
procedure."
5. The scheme of selection followed by the respondents declared that 50
marks are awarded for professional ability and 30 for service record. The
respondents have submitted that the selection was conducted as per rules
mentioned in notification dated 7th January, 2010.
6. In view of the above directions, the petitioner was not entitled to any
additional benefit based on the dimplomas as additional qualifications which
he claims. The petitioner did not press any other ground before the
Tribunal.
These are reasons which have weighed with the Tribunal while
rejecting the petitioner's claim by way of the impugned order dated 24th
November, 2011.
7. The rejection of review application by the order dated 27th February,
2012 was based on the above directives contained in the Railway Board's
letter dated 22nd March, 2006. This was the only point which was pressed in
support of the application.
8. In view of the above, the petitioner was not entitled to any additional
benefit based on the qualifications which he claimed. The action of the
respondents or the impugned orders dated 24th November, 2011 as well as
the order dated 27th February, 2012 therefore cannot be faulted on any
legally tenable ground.
9. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the
petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition in the year 2012 assailing the
orders dated 24th November, 2011 and 27th February, 2012. The petitioner
has concealed the factum of filing of the previous writ petition as well as its
fate in the present writ petition.
10. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition and
application. The writ petition and the application are hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 06, 2014
rb
