High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ziaul Haque And Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 15196 of 2003  RD-AH 90 (9 April 2003)
COURT NO. 38
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO 15196 Of 2003
Ziaul Haque & ors ----- Petitioners
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad & ors ----- Respondents.
Hon'ble Ghanshyam Dass, J.
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st January, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the Claim Petition filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 29, by which the panel prepared by the 2nd set of respondent, i.e., Northern Railways has been quashed.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners had been working as Senior Goods Guards and they appeared in the selection held for 30 posts of Passenger Guards (Grade Rs.5000-8000) on 28/29.5.2002 and 13.6.2002. As a result of the aforesaid selection, the petitioners were selected by virtue of the panel of Passenger Guards dated 5.7.2001. The said panel was challenged by the respondent nos. 2 to 29 by filing Original Applications 829 and 859 of 2001. The present petitioners also filed reply to the said applications and a large number of issues were framed. While deciding the issues the said panel has been quashed vide impugned judgment and order dated 1.1.2003. Hence this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the said Original Applications and the matter has been adjudicated upon without appreciating the facts and law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for parties made same submissions, which have been raised before the Tribunal.
In view of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 9 issues and dealt with each of them elaborately appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and evidence on record. Some of the issues had been as to whether the selection committee was rightly constituted in accordance with law; whether change of member of the selection committee in the midst of selection vitiated the entire selection; whether the non imparting training course for the scheduled caste candidates vitiated the selection; whether the selection has been made in accordance with law; and as to whether directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the same subject had been complied with; and whether the officer punished in disciplinary enquiry can be promoted?.
Dealing with issues the learned Tribunal in its elaborate judgment held that in view of the settled legal propositions, particularly, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Ragaiya Vs. IC Registration reported in AIR 1996 SC 2199, para 4 and State of Tamilnadu Vs. K.S. Merugesan, reported in 1995 (29) ATC 555 (SC), the person undergoing punishment is not even eligible for promotion. However in the instant case, while preparing the panel a person who had been given punishment of withholding of increment for three years, had been selected for the post. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was a case of non application of mind and selection had been held arbitrarily and the selection committee did not adhere to the criteria adopted for it.
Similarly, the issue of imparting the training to scheduled caste candidates before holding the selection in view of the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Devi Singh & ors. Vs. Union of India and Tajinder Singh Vs. Union of India decided by the learned Tribunal. Was held to be mandatory. The said cases also related to the selection of Passenger Guards. In the instant case no compliance was made of such mandatory requirement. Thus, the selection was not proper. The Tribunal also held that there was particular requirement under the rules Paras 4-19 that whenever the Selection Board is to be constituted it would consist of officers of Junior Administrative Grades. In the instant case, the Selection Board was constituted by officers of the Senior Administrative Grades. Issue has been elaborately dealt with rejecting the case of the present petitioners on the ground that the Rules had been amended but the same could not be published and hence could not be enforced. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.K.Sriniwasan Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1059; Harla Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467; and Pankaj Jain Vs. Union of India & ors. (1994) 3SCC 198, wherein it has been held that any amendment in statutory provision or rules having statutory force will come into effect only when it is published and it is not necessary that every such amendment is published in the official gazette, as a different mode of publication may also be prescribed by subordinate legislation. The Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that amendments in the rules changing the construction of the Selection Board had never been notified in any manner whatsoever. Thus in view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly held that amendment remained ineffective and unenforceable and the selection stood vitiated. Even while deciding other issues the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the selection had not been made in accordance with law. In limited jurisdiction of the judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution no interference is warranted as the learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the Court that finding of any of the issues was perverse being based on no evidence or being contrary to the evidence on record.
Non-imparting training to the SC/ST candidates before the test was conducted, as was mandatorily required has definitely caused prejudice to the cause of the candidates belonging to those categories. Similarly, selection of ineligible candidate, because of punishment imposed after holding disciplinary proceedings, caused prejudice to the contesting respondents. Thus, it is not the case where non-observation of rules etc. has not materially prejudiced the cause of the other side.
We find no ground to interfere with the judgment and order impugned. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.