Maradana Venkata Naidu & Others General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar & Others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30761 of 2022 Maradana Venkata Naidu & Others General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar & Others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Pardhi, CGC along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 01.
Decision
ORDER 27.09.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.K. Pardhi, learned Central Government Counsel along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Opposite Parties. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in M.A. Nos.438 and 439 (O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018) under Annexure-4, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the said M.As on the ground of delay and consequentially dismissed the O.A. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties issued an advertisement on 30.05.1996 inviting applications for engagement of 737 casual labourers on daily rate basis for a period of 119 days in Civil Engineering Department of Railway, i.e. for Waltair Division-67, Vizianagaram Division-100, Page 1 of 6 Srikakulam Division-200, Rayagada Division-100, Araku Division-100, Koraput Division-70, Jagadlpur Division-30 and Kirandul Division-70, pursuant to which the petitioners submitted their applications for engagement in Rayagada Division. Since the opposite parties did not engage them, they sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act, 2005”) and submitted representation on 17.02.2017 for consideration of their cases. Due to non-consideration of the same, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 along with M.A. No.438 of 2018 seeking permission to prosecute the case jointly and M.A. No.439 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay. The prayer of the petitioners in the said O.A. reads as follows: “a) Let the Respondent No.1 be directed to consider representation dtd.17.02.2017 of the applicants vide Annexure-2 within a stipulated period. b) Let the Respondent be directed to give appointment to the applicants as per selection list on the basis of advertisement dtd.30.05.96 within a stipulated period by giving age relaxation. c) Let it be declared that the selection made by the respondents on 21.09.09 is illegal arbitrary and the same is contrary to advertisement dtd.30.05.96 and also order passed in W.P.(C) No.5053/03.” In M.A. No.439 of 2018, the petitioners stated in paragraphs-3 & 4 as follows: “3. That it is necessary to mention here that as per the advertisement, the petitioners applied those posts and they remained silent over the matter with a hope the authorities will issue appointment order in time since everything has been completed. More over some of the persons have filed case before this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Court specifically observed in W.P.(C) No.5053/03 poverty can never be a ground to deny Page 2 of 6 them in such a manner so as to reach out to all affected persons. 4. That, the petitioners after coming to know all these things remained silent over the matter with a hope they will gate service as per list. But the petitioners on 10.2.17 suspected the conduct of the opposite parties and made a representation on 17.2.17. Thereafter they were forced to apply under R.T.I. Act to supply all the relevant documents as per Annexure-3.” 5. In view of above pleadings, it appears that after a long lapse of time, in order to revive their claim, the petitioners sought information under the RTI Act and consequentially filed O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018. But, in the meantime, more than 20 years have passed from the date of publication of advertisement, i.e., in the year 1996. Fact remains, pursuant to advertisement issued on 30.05.1996, the Railway authorities prepared a list of candidates to be considered for appointment. Similarly situated persons challenged the said list before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.1067-1085 of 2002, which was disposed of on 26.12.2002. Aggrieved by such order, the opposite parties approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5053 of 2003, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2008 and against the said order, the opposite parties preferred SLP (C) No.8279 of 2009, which was also dismissed. The petitioners filed O.A. No.406 of 2009 before the Tribunal for consideration of their engagement, as they were shortlisted in physical test held for engagement under Rayagada Sub-Unit, which was disposed of on 02.09.2009 with a direction to dispose of the representation. In compliance thereto, the representation dated 12.09.2009, so filed by the petitioners, was duly considered and rejected vide letters/orders dated 09.11.2009 and 24.11.2009. It has also been stated that in the physical test seven applicants, Page 3 of 6 whose names appeared at Sl. Nos.4, 5 and 13 to 17 of the said O.A., did not appear for the selection test, and remaining 10 candidates, who had appeared in the test held on 09.07.1996 and 21.07.1996 for engagement in Rayagada Sub Division, did not come out successful. 6. The opposite parties placed reliance on the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.272 of 2017 filed by similarly situated persons for the same selection, which was rejected by the Tribunal. Now coming to know that there was illegal manner of selection, the petitioners sought information under the RTI Act and after getting information they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 along with M.A. Nos.438 and 439 of 2018 seeking permission to prosecute the case jointly and condonation of delay respectively. But, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2022 dismissed the said O.A. 7. Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that if similarly situated persons have already been extended with the benefit and the petitioners, after getting information under the RTI Act, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018, the same should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay, rather the Tribunal should have directed the opposite parties to extend similar benefits to the petitioners. 8. Mr. B.K. Pardhi, learned Central Government Counsel along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the opposite parties contended that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ petition, as they have approached the Tribunal as well this Court at Page 4 of 6 a much belated stage. Thereby, the Tribunal is well justified in passing the impugned order dated 22.09.2022, which does not warrant interference of this Court at this stage. 9. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioners are trying to implement the result of the advertisement issued on 30.05.1996 for engagement of 737 casual labourers on daily rate basis for a period of 119 days in Civil Engineering Department of Railway for different Divisions by filing O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 along with M.A. Nos.438 and 439 and 439 of 2018 at a belated stage stating, inter alia, pursuant to advertisement, though the petitioners had applied for the aforesaid posts, they remained silent with a hope that the authorities will issue appointment order in time since everything has been completed. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.09.2022, dismissed the said O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Tribunal after a long lapse of 20 years. More so, the conduct of the petitioners shows that they are the fence sitters, because pursuant to advertisement issued in 1996, if the opposite parties prepared a list for engagement of some persons and they got benefit, the petitioners could not have approached the Tribunal after long lapse of 20 years. More so, O.A. No.1067-1085 of 2002 having been disposed of, the order passed therein was challenged in W.P.(C) No.5053 of 2003, which was also dismissed and thereafter the SLP (C) No.8279 of 2009 preferred by the opposite parties having been dismissed, the order of the Tribunal was given effect to by giving appointment to the similarly situated persons. But the petitioners waited till 2009 and Page 5 of 6 thereafter obtaining information under the RTI Act, filed the aforesaid O.A. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioners are the fence sitters. Consequentially, the fence sitters have no right to claim such benefit after a long lapse of 20 years. 10. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly passed a reasoned order on 22.09.2002 while dismissing the O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 on the ground of delay, as the claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 22.09.2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.260/00549 of 2018 so as to cause interference of this Court. 11. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Alok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 29-Sep-2023 14:26:22 Page 6 of 6