High Court · 2012

02. We have heard Mr. BR Dey, Senior Advocate for the writ petitione r and Mr. UK Nair assisted by Mr. Chetri, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway for the respondents.

03. An abridged version of the pleaded facts would project the factu al background. The writ petitioner at the relevant point of time was Apprentice Mechanic detailed under the Workshop (M&P), Guwahati at New Bongaigaon Railway W orkshop. On 15.12.2005 an advertisement was published for filling up the followi ng vacancies against the aforementioned quota under Rule 141 of the Code by a se lection process from the Intermediate Apprentice (also designated as Apprentice Mechanics): - Workshop cadre comprising of Carriage & of Carriage & Other Trades except machin e & Millwright Trades UR = 06, SC = 01 & ST = 01 = 08 Workshop (M&P) Cadre-Comprising of Machine & Millwright Trades. UR = 03, SC = Nil & ST = Nil = 0 Total 3 UR 09, SC 01 & ST 01 11 The academic qualifications and other conditions of eligibility 04. were laid down therein. This exercise, as a matter of fact, was one to enable th e Intermediate Apprentices possessed of pre revised qualifications to partake th erein. Incidentally, meanwhile, the earlier academic qualification of matriculat ion or equivalent thereto had been raised to 10 + 2 in the Science stream. As would be apparent from the above extract, 8 and 3 vacancies respectively, in the Workshop Cadre comprising of Carriage & Other Trades except Machine & Millwr ight Trades and Workshop (M&P) Cadre respectively had been contemplated, totalin g 11. The writ petitioner, accordingly, took the written test, which was held on 26.08.2006 and in the results declared thereafter, he was shown to be unsuccess ful. By an office memorandum dated 09.10.2006, on the basis of the performance i n the written examination, 8 candidates were selected for appointment to the pos t of JE/II in the scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. The list included two candidates, nam ely, Sri Pradip Dey and Sri Gautam Dastidar, who, though, belonged to the Worksh op Cadre were accommodated against two vacancies with the Workshop (M&P) Cadre. The writ petitioner perceiving that the selection of the above two candidates ag ainst the vacancies earmarked for M&P Cadre Workshop was impermissible in law an d that the selection process had been deliberately tilted towards the candidates of the Workshop Cadre, approached the learned Tribunal at the first instance wi th OA No.59/2007, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to d ispose of his representation ventilating identical grievances. The representatio n having been rejected, the applicant/writ petitioner again approached the Tribu nal with OA No.196/2007, which, by the impugned judgment and order, has been dis missed, negating the assailments.

05. The respondents/Railways in their written statement before the l earned Tribunal, in substance, had pleaded that though, while disclosing the vac ancies, those were projected vis-a-vis Workshop Cadre and Workshop (M&P) Cadre, these, in fact, belong to the Mechanical Department under the Railways and it ha d never been intended to compartmentalize the same for the purpose of selection and accommodation of the candidates cadre wise. According to the respondents/Rai lways, a common written test was held for all the candidates, who were construed to be a homogeneous class and after the selection, allotments were made against the vacancies depending on administrative exigencies. Moreover, the applicant/w rit petitioner having failed in the common written test, he has no locus standi, either to impugn the selection process or the allotment of vacancies to the suc cessful candidates.

06. Whereas, Mr. Dey, has insisted that having regard to the unambig uous disclosures in the advertisement and the clearly intended bifurcation of th e posts cadre wise, no appointment of any candidate of Workshop Cadre against an y vacancy in the Workshop (M&P) Cadre was allowable in law, Mr. Nair, has abided by the pleaded stand of the N.F. Railways as summarized hereinabove. In order t o substantiate the challenge laid by the writ petitioner, Mr. Dey has placed rel iance on a decision of the Apex Court in R.S. JAYAKUMAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF KERA LA & ORS., IX (2007) SLT 614.

07. We have extended our thoughtful consideration to the rival plead ings and the arguments advanced. That the selection process had been conducted i n terms of Rule 141 of the Code is an admitted fact. The writ petitioner as well as the candidates selected and appointed vide office memorandum dated 09.10.200 6 were eligible in terms of the prescriptions of this provision of the Code. Tha t the writ petitioner in the written test held commonly for all the candidates h ad been unsuccessful is also not disputed.

08. The above quoted extract from the advertisement makes it obvious that while disclosing the vacancies, the concerned authorities had indicated th ose cadre wise. To reiterate, 8 vacancies were in the Workshop Cadre and 3 for t he Workshop (M&P) Cadre. There is no wrangle at the Bar that a common written te st was held for all the candidates vying for these posts. No other provision, ex cept Rule 141 of the Code, has been brought to our notice to demonstrate any dis tinguishing feature either in the conditions of eligibility or the measure of as sessment of the candidates for the purpose of their selection against the vacanc ies cadre wise. The plea advanced on behalf of the respondent/Railways that the Apprentice Mechanics also designated as Intermediate Apprentice Mechanics in the feeder cadre for promotion/selection to the post of JE/II constitute a homogene ous category has remained unrefuted by the writ petitioners. More importantly, t he writ applicant/petitioner has failed in the written test. Though, a represent ation about 6 weeks after the written test had been submitted by him along with those before the authority concerned (Annexure III), there is no whisper with re gard to their reservation and cavil on the grounds as urged by them initially be fore the learned Tribunal and ventilating before this Court. In R.S. JAYAKUMAR & ORS. (Supra), the process involved was one f 09. or selection for undergoing Rangers’ training so as to render the successful can didates eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. Rangers/Foresters in the Keral a Forest Subordinate Service. In the advertisement issued by the Kerala Public S ervice Commission, it was, inter alia, mentioned in categorical terms that only approved probationers and members in the respective category of service would be eligible to participate in the process of selection. The respondents in the rep orted case, though, were neither appointed to the service nor were approved prob ationers applied for and were allowed to participate in the selection and were r ecommended for the training course. The challenge to their eligibility qua the p rescriptions in the advertisement, they being neither appointed to the service n or approved probationers, were upheld by the Apex Court, propounding such a depa rture was impermissible. Though, incidentally, the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner has pre ssed into service this decision to bring home the point that deviation from the advertised norms is not sanctioned in law, we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are unable to lend our concurrence to this proposition in absence of any material demonstrating in unmistakable terms that the respondent-Railways in advertising the vacancies as above, had intended to maintain a distinct and cle ar compartmentalization of the vacancies so much so to prohibit any selected can didate working under the Workshop Cadre to be appointed against a vacancy in the Workshop (M&P) Cadre. In the factual premise as above, this decision is of no a vail to the writ petitioners.

10. ge. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in the challen