Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Anr vs Mahesh Chander & Ors on 4 May, 2016
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6442/2014
Date of decision: 4th May, 2016
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Ms. Rashmi
Malhotra and Ms. Priyanka Bharihoke, Advocates.
versus
MAHESH CHANDER & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Lalta Prasad, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi by this petition impugns order dated 3 rd April, 2013
passed in OA No.1836/2012 and order dated 19 th May, 2014 passed in
Review Application No.149/2013.
2. By the first impugned order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the aforesaid OA filed by 33
applicants, who are respondents before us, was allowed with a direction that
the said respondents would be interpolated in the select list of Loco Pilot
Goods (LPG) issued in the year 2005. The impugned order dated 3rd April,
2013 records the reason for granting the said relief as parity with some
others, who had cleared the Loco Pilot Goods Selection Test in the year
2008 and were granted identical relief in OA No. 1892/2007.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents-applicants.
4. Written examinations were held in July and August, 2005 for filling
up 609 vacancies in the posts of Loco Pilot Goods (Goods Driver). As per
the Recruitment Rules, First Fireman/Diesel/Electrical Assistants (including
Shunters with less than three months' service) were eligible and entitled to
sit in the said limited departmental examination provided they had put in (a)
six years' service (combined as Second Fireman and First Fireman/Diesel
Assistant/Electrical Assistant) or (b) two years' service as First
Fireman(Diesel Assistant/Electrical Assistant, and (c) had 60,000 kilometres
experience on foot-plate as First Fireman/Diesel Assistant/Electrical
Assistant.
5. The respondents herein along with several others, who met the
eligibility criteria, had applied and participated in the said examination for
Loco Pilot Goods (Goods Driver). A select list of those, who had cleared
the said examination, was published on 20th June, 2005. The respondents
herein did not qualify and had failed the said test. Some others, who were
junior or senior to the respondents in their original grade, had qualified and
cleared the said test.
6. One Jitender Singh and 62 others, who were not permitted and
allowed to appear in the 2005 examination, raised their grievance and had
filed OA No.1892 of 2007. The said OA was decided by the Tribunal by
order dated 14th August, 2008 with the following directions:-
"It goes without saying that if the applicants pass in
this selection in the first attempt and they are
empanelled, not only their names would be interpolated
in the earlier panel of 2005 by giving them the benefit
of seniority from the same date from which their
juniors have been promoted but their pay would also be
fixed on proforma basis from the same date. Actual
from the date, they shoulder the responsibilities of the
next higher post."
A bare reading of the aforesaid directions would reflect the reason why the
said directions were mandated. The applicants in OA No.1892 of 2007 were
wrongly denied and were not permitted to appear in the 2005 examination
for selection as Loco Pilot Goods (LPG). They had suffered loss of
seniority to those selected in 2005, without opportunity to compete and get
selected. Wrongful denial of the right to compete and try for selection had
caused prejudice and irreparable harm. They had been deprived of their
right to take a march on their senior and in fact made junior to their juniors,
who had got selected. The Tribunal, therefore, had directed that in case the
said applicants clear the said examination in the first attempt, their names
would be interpolated in the earlier panel of 2005 by giving them the benefit
of seniority from the date their junior had been promoted. Their pay would
be fixed on proforma basis from the same date, but they would be given
actual pay from the date they shoulder responsibility at the said post.
7. The impugned order dated 3rd April, 2013 holds that the respondents
herein would be entitled to the same benefit on the principle of parity and
equality with Jitender Singh and 62 others. Noticeably, the respondents
herein had appeared in the subsequent selection examinations held in the
year 2008 in which Jitender Singh and 62 others had participated along with
other eligible employees including the respondents herein.
8. We have considered the reasoning given by the Tribunal and are
unable to find any justification and reason for treating the respondents herein
as equal and pari passu to Jitender Singh and 62 others. The respondents
herein were allowed and had competed and participated in the 2005
selection test for the post of Loco Pilot Goods (LPG), but they had failed.
They did not qualify. This is a significant and crucial fact, which
distinguishes the case of the respondents herein from the case of the Jitender
Singh and 62 others. The claim of parity and equivalence, therefore, should
have been rejected. The respondents herein cannot be equated and identified
with Jitender Singh and 62 others.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the present writ petition and set
aside and quash the order dated 3rd April, 2013 by which OA No. 1836/2012
was allowed. As a sequitur, the order dated 19th May, 2014 passed in the
Review Application is also set aside. The OA No.1836/2012 filed by the
respondents herein will be treated as dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MAY 04, 2016
NA/VKR
