Gauhati High Court
Harshit Pathak vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 23 October, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010262072023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6773/2023
HARSHIT PATHAK
S/O- DEVENDRA PRASAD PATHAK, R/O- PLOT NO.36 (A. NO. 628), RS
ENCLAVE, INDRA NAGAR, KALYANPUR, KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN-
208026
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI- 110001
2:RAILWAY BOARD
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY
RAIL BHAWAN
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110001
3:GENERAL MANAGER (P)
N.F.RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
ASSAM
4:RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD
GUWAHATI
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
STATION RD
PAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781001
Page No.# 2/9
5:PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S NATH, DR G J SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B CHAKRAVARTY(CGC),MR. B CHAKRAVARTY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date : 23-10-2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J)
Heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also
heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC appearing for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting this writ petition has presented a challenge to
an order dated 18.05.2023, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 040/00116/2023.
3. Brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present
proceeding are noticed as under:-
3.1. The petitioner, in response to a Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No.
02/2019 had submitted his application for recruitment against the post of Health and
Malaria Inspector Grade-III. The petitioner while submitting his application has opted
for the posts assigned to the Railway Recruitment Board, Guwahati. On conclusion of
the selection process, the results of the candidates were declared by the authorities
and the applicant secured 59.52381 marks. In terms of the prescriptions made in the
said CEN No. 02/2019, on conclusion of the selection process, based on the
Page No.# 3/9
performance of the candidates in the examination, a list of candidates equal to the
number of vacancies was required to be prepared for calling them for document
verification. In addition to the said list, it was required that 50% extra candidates
would also be called as standby candidates for consideration of their cases for
empanelment, in the event, there is a short fall in empanelment in the main list. The
petitioner, thereafter, submitted RTI applications and from the response received
thereto, it was revealed that in total 22 candidates were called for document
verification and in the main list 12 candidates were so included and another 10
candidates were so included in the standby list. Although the petitioner had acquired
the cut-off marks of 59.52381 marks for inclusion in the standby list against the Un-
reserved category, his name was not included in the standby list and one Subhradip
Paul, who had also secured the same marks, came to be included on the ground that
he was older than the petitioner, herein. It is further projected that the vacancies as
identified against the post of Health and Malaria Inspector Grade-III, including 09
vacancies for Un-reserved candidates against the post of Health and Malaria Inspector
Grade-III for RRB, Guwahati came to be filled up.
3.2. The Railway Board, vide a communication dated 29.08.2022, on consideration
of the proposal received from the Zonal Railways for replacement and/or additional
Paramedical category vacancies, proceeded to lay down that such requirement would
be met in respect of CEN No. 02/2019 from the standby/wait listed candidates of the
respective RRBs. Further requirements of the vacancies, if any, shall be so met from
other RRBs catering to the various Zonal Railways. For the said purpose, the validity of
the panels of CEN No. 02/2019 (Paramedical categories) was extended for a period of
one year. It was further recommended that the required empanelment should be
made from the panel of standby candidates already available with the RRBs and no
new round of document verification is to be done if demand remains unmet. The
Railway Board thereafter, reiterated the above position again vide vide a
communication dated 13.01.2023 in respect of additional vacancies.
Page No.# 4/9
3.3. The petitioner, at this stage, as applicant, has instituted Original Application No.
040/00116/2023 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench
with the following prayers:-
8.1. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the
applicant for appointment against additional and replacement vacancies of
H&MI-III (UR category) under CEN No. 02/2019 as done in case of
standby/waitlisted candidates of RRB, Guwahati with same cut off marks as
the applicant and complete his selection process.
8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the
applicant for appointment to the post of H&MI-III (UR category) against
additional and replacement vacancies prior to giving scope to the standby
candidates of other RRB's under the Railway Board's letters dated 29.08.2022
and 13.01.2023 disregarding any bar therein and complete his selection
process under Recruitment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2019.
8.3. Impugned para 4(iv) of Railway Board's letter dated 29.08.2022 and para
4(ii) of Railway Board's letter dated 13.01.2023 be set aside and quashed so
far the applicant is concerned.
8.4. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper,
including the cost of the case.
3.4 Thereafter, the petitioner, as applicant also instituted a Miscellaneous
Application being M.A. No. 54/2023 for addition of a further prayer in the Original
Application No. 116/2023 to the extent of reviewing the standby list on 08.09.2019 for
second document verification relying upon the Railway Board's Letter dated
26.06.2020, for filling additional vacancies in terms of the Railway Board's Letter dated
29.08.2022 and 13.01.2023.
4. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the matter and appreciating the fact
Page No.# 5/9
that the Railway Board vide the communication dated 29.08.2022 and 13.01.2023
having required the Zonal Railways to fill up the vacancies available from the
candidates in the waiting list and the petitioner not being so included in the waiting
list, proceeded to hold that the applicant does not have any locus standi to claim the
benefits under the Railway Board's Circular dated 29.08.2022. Basing on such
conclusion, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the Original Application as well
as the Miscellaneous Application so filed by the applicant.
5. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner having secured marks equal to the cut off marks as mandated for inclusion
in the standby list against Un-reserved vacancies, in the event, additional vacancies
are sought to be filled up, the case of the petitioner is also required to be so
considered.
6. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Railway
Board vide communication dated 26.06.2020, had laid down the procedure for review
of the standby list and the prescription so made mandates conduct of a second
document verification by including candidates equal to 1.5 times the number of
shortfall of the vacancies, community/category wise by going down in the merit list to
make good the shortfall.
7. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the above premises, submitted
that the Railway Board having permitted vide the communications dated 29.08.2022
and 13.01.2023 to fill up additional vacancies in respect of various categories of CEN
No. 02/2019 (Paramedical categories), the respondent authorities cannot deny to the
petitioner a due consideration of his case for appointment against such additional
vacancies and accordingly, submits that appropriate directions is called upon to be
issued to the respondent authorities to follow the procedure as mandated by the
Railway board in its communication dated 26.06.2020; and thereby, facilitate the
appointment of the petitioner against the post he had so applied in pursuance to the
Page No.# 6/9
CEN No. 02/2019.
8. Per contra, Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC appearing for the respondents
submitted that the communication dated 26.06.2020, relied upon by the petitioner,
herein, would have no application to the facts of the present case and the recruitment
so involved is to be so governed by the provisions of the O.M. dated 29.08.2022 and
13.01.2023. It is further submitted that the said communications having barred the
further process of document verification and having limited the empanelment to the
candidates already included in the standby/waiting list, in absence of a specific
challenge to the said communications as well as a challenge to the non-inclusion of
the name of the petitioner in the standby list dated 08.09.2019 before the learned
Tribunal, the claim of the petitioner, herein, cannot be entertained and accordingly,
submits that the learned Tribunal in passing the order dated 18.05.2023, rejecting the
claim of the petitioner, herein, had committed no error.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the materials available on record.
10. At the outset, it is to be noted that that petitioner, herein, had not assailed
before the learned Tribunal, his non-inclusion in the standby list as preferred in
pursuance to the recruitment process initiated with the issuance of the CEN No.
02/2019. The petitioner had further not assailed the stipulations as made in the
communications dated 29.08.2022 and 13.01.2023 before the learned Tribunal.
11. The petitioner, herein, although had secured 59.52381 marks, which was the
marks so secured by the last candidate included in the standby list against the Un-
reserved vacancies available, did not figure in the standby list only on account of a
stipulation in this connection in Clause 14.2 of CEN No. 02/2019, which inter alia
provides that in case of two or more candidates securing same marks, their merit
position shall be determined by age criteria i.e., older person shall be placed at higher
merit and in case age being same, then alphabetical order (a to z) of the name shall
Page No.# 7/9
be taken into account to break the tie. One Mr. Subhradip Paul, who had also secured
59.52381 marks, came to be included in the standby list against the Un-reserved
vacancies on account of the fact that he was older than the petitioner herein. It is to
be also noted with the inclusion of said Subhradip Paul, the standby list stood
completed.
12. It is further revealed from the materials brought on record that except for three
vacancies in the Un-reserved vacancies, identified for appointment of persons with
Bench-marked Disability, all the vacancies against the post of Health and Malaria
Inspector Grade-III, identified for RRB Guwahati, came to be filled up from the main
list itself. The claim of the petitioner for holding of a second document verification is
based on a communication dated 26.06.2020, however in the light of the Railway
Board's decision as contained in the communications dated 29.08.2022 and
13.01.2023, which is again specific to the recruitment process instituted by the CEN
No. 02/2019, the prescriptions as made in the communication dated 26.06.2020 would
have no application to the present case.
13. The communication dated 29.08.2022 while extending the validity of the panels
so prepared in pursuance to CEN No. 02/2019 for the Para Medical categories, had
mandated that empanelment if further required, is to be done only from amongst the
standby candidates already available with the RRBs and no new round of document
verification is to be done if the demand remains unmet. The said policy decision of the
Railway Board, specific to the recruitment process in issue in the present proceeding
having mandated the empanelment of candidates for the purpose of filling up
available vacancies, strictly, from the standby list prepared in respect of the Railway
Recruitment Board, the petitioner having not being so included in such standby list, he
cannot be now permitted to claim for holding of a further document verification
process and preparation of a fresh standby list.
14. The learned Tribunal vide the order dated 18.05.2023, had appreciated the said
Page No.# 8/9
aspect of the matter and had drawn following conclusions:-
"It is admitted fact that the applicant had not been placed even in the waiting
list. Since all the 9 vacancies of UR category earmarked for RRB Guwahati has
already been filled up, he did not get any chance to get appointment. We have
perused the Railway Board Circular dated 29.08.2022, wherein it has been
categorically mentioned that even after exhausting the waiting list, candidates
available with any RRB, if there is requirement of Zonal Railway in other RRB,
in that case that can be filled up by the waiting list candidates even from the
other RRBs also. Therefore, the basic criteria and contention of the said circular
is to be filled up the vacancies by waiting list candidates and since the
applicant was not even placed in waiting list, he cannot challenge the
stipulation of para 4(iv) of the circular in part, after praying for extension of
benefit of the said circular, which is the basic contention of the circular that
unfilled vacancies will be filled by the waiting list candidates of other RRB also.
Therefore, we are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that at
present the applicant does not have any locus standi to ask for benefit under
Railway Board circular dated 29.08.2022 and also to challenge para 4 (iv) of
the sald circular dated 29.08.2022. However, If It would be set aside then the
entire circular would become infructuous. We have also perused the Railway
Board circular dated 26.06.2020. However, it is noted that the circular dated
26.06.2020 is not related to the Centralised Employrnent Notice (CEN) No.
02/2019. The applicant in one hand is asking for extension of benefit of the
circular dated 29.08.2022 and on the other hand he is asking for review of
standby list dated 08.09.2019 as per Railway Board's letter dated 26.06.2020.
However, he has never challenged for non-inclusion of his name in the waiting
list."
15. The conclusions as drawn by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the
decisions of the Railway Board as contained in the communications dated 29.08.2022
and 13.01.2023.
16. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the petitioner had made a vague
Page No.# 9/9
reference to the fact that the communications dated 29.08.2022 and 13.01.2023 have
the effect of utilizing the standby list/waiting list for filling up of additional/future
vacancies. It is also a settled position of law that a wait list cannot be utilized for filling
up of vacancies coming into existence after the issuance of the advertisement in
question. However, in absence of a challenge to the decision of the Railway Board as
contained in the communications dated 29.08.2022 and 13.01.2023 for filling up of
additional vacancies by Zonal Railways from standby/wait listed candidates of CEN No.
02/2019, we are of the view that the said aspect of the matter would not be called
upon to be so considered in the present proceedings and is kept open to be so
considered in an appropriate proceeding instituted in the matter, making a specific
challenge to such process of recruitment.
17. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide order dated 18.03.2023, passed
in Original Application No. 040/00116/2023, had committed no error in rejecting the
claim of the petitioner so made before it and accordingly, the same would not call for
any interference.
18. The writ petition is therefore, held to be devoid of any merit and the same
stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
