High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 462/2013 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE,THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI (A.M.Sapre,CJ) This is a writ petition filed by the Railways (Union of India - non appl icant of O.A.No. 280 of 2011 and O.A.No.285 of 2011)under Article 227 of the Con stitution of India against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by the Central Admin istrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter called for brevity- The Tribunal ) in aforementioned two O.A. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the two original applications fi led by the respective applicants (employees) and in consequence set aside the or der dated 12.4.2011 impugned in the original applications. So, the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petiti on filed by the Union of India (Railways) is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original applications and in consequence was justified in quashi ng the order dated 12.4.2011 impugned therein?
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) is a Railway employee wor king in their set up as Female Sanitary Cleaner since 2002. She is posted in the Railway Hospital (North-East Frontier Railway) at Maligaon. The Railway adverti sed for filling the post of (cid:28)Male and Female Hospital Attendant (cid:29) in the Hospital . The respondent as an in-service candidate applied for the post of Female Hospi tal Attendant. She appeared in the written test and on her clearing the written examination, also appeared in the interview and was eventually declared selected . It is this selection process which was cancelled by the Railways by the impugn ed order dated 12.4.2011 which gave rise to its challenge by the respondent befo re Tribunal in the Original Application No.280 of 2011 out of which this writ pe tition arises. Though Railway contested the Original Application but it was allo wed by the Tribunal by impugned order which has now given rise to filing of this writ petition by the Railways (Union of India). This is what the Tribunal, while allowing the original application and q uashing the order impugned therein, held in para 8 onwards : (cid:28)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and pleadings, we find that the applicant offered her candidature in pursuance o f the Notification dated 30.08.2010. She appeared at the viva voce test, she fou nd her place in the eligibility list and thereafter she was placed as a selected candidate along with others for the post of Female Hospital Attendant. The Sele ct List dated 27.11.2010 is annexed as Annexure-D to the O.A. which was not cate gorically denied by the respondents, nor placed any document to show that the sa id Select List did not include the name of the applicant. Hence, the argument of
Legal Reasoning
Ms N.D.Barman, learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable. 9. As per Rule 214(c)(iv) of IREM Vol. 1 an employee who has passed a suita bility test once need not be called for the test again and should be eligible fo r promotion as and when vacancies arises. Rule 219 of IREM Vol. I says about the procedure to be adopted by the Selection Board. The learned counsel for the res pondents failed to place any rule/provision or document or any other material to show that the procedure adopted was wrong inasmuch as there was provision for O BC candidates in the panel. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents also failed to place any materia l so as to prove that any notice or opportunity was given to the applicant befor e cancellation of the suitability test and select list. In Pradip Kr. Das (supra ), the Hon’ble High Court held that: (cid:28)when a number of candidates appear at an e xamination under certain rules and regulations, there is an implied obligation o n the part of those who conduct the examination not to deprive the examinees the fruits of their examination unless there is violation of the rules or regulatio ns by the candidates themselves &.. (cid:28)If there was irregularity in conducting the examination, the candidates could not be blamed for that. If there was malpract ices adopted by some of the examinees they could have been detected at the exami nation. & & (cid:29) If subsequently there was criticism against the Commission in the ma tter of selection, the candidates who already appeared and were successful at th e examination, could not be blamed, far less could be deprived of the fruits of the examination. (cid:29) In the present case, after appearing in the suitability test a nd finding place in the select list, the applicant definitely accrued a right to be heard before cancellation of the panel, but he was not given such opportunit
Decision
In the above circumstances we hold that the order dated 12.04.2011 was n y. 11. ot justified and the same is set aside and quashed. In the result, O.A.No.280/2011 stands allowed. 12. In view of the above decision rendered in O.A.No.280/2011, O.A. No.285/2 13. 011 which has been filed by the applicant praying for promotion to the post of H ospital Attendant, Ayah also stands allowed. No order as to costs. (cid:29) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the r ecord of the case, we find no merit in this writ petition as in our considered o pinion, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original applications and qua shing the order impugned therein. In our considered opinion, the fact that respondent appeared in the writ ten test and then in the interview which resulted in her selection was not dispu ted by the Railways. We, therefore, fail to appreciate as to what was the fault of the respondent which could prevent her from being selected. Rule 214 (c) (IV) of IREM ( VOL-1) relied on by the Tribunal also in clear terms provided that on ce the candidate passes suitability test need not again be called for the same t est again. In our view, this Rule applied to the facts of this case in full force. That apa rt, the Railway also failed to plead and prove that respondent committed any kin d of manipulation or indulged in some kind of malpractices to secure the appoint ment by illegal means. In the absence of any such allegations made by the Railwa y against the respondent, there was no justification on the part of the Railway authorities to cancel the selection list. That apart, admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the respondent prior to such cancellation. It is for all these reasons, in our view, the Tribunal rightly cancelled the order impugned in the o riginal application. We are not impressed by the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner (Railways). We, however, do not wish to deal with them in d etails because mostly they were on facts and confined to internal affairs of the Railway as to what mistakes the officer concerned committed while issuing the a dvertisement etc. Suffice it to say, it was not the concern of the respondent an d nor it could be made basis for cancellation of her selection once she cleared the written test and interview. Since the post in question is now filled in by the Railways as stated by the writ petitioner’s counsel and hence, it be given to the respondent on the f irst available occasion as soon as it is made available with the Railways. It is with these directions and observations, we find no merit in the wr it petition which fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.