CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE
TRANSFERRED APPLICATION Nos.87/2010 & 357/2010
DATED THIS
THE TH DAY OF .............. , 2012
HON'BLE
Dr. K.B. SURESH ... MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE
SMT LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER(A)
1. R. Nanjunda,
S/o
Sajappa,
Aged 41
years,
Pointsman
'A'/Kodaganur,
Door
No.113/B, Railway Colony,
Harihar,
Karnataka.
2. N.P. Obaiah,
S/o
Palaiah,
Aged
about 45 years,
Pointsman
'A'/Challakere,
No.8C,
Challakere RS &Post,
Challakere, Taluk, Chitradurga District,
Karnataka.
(Applicants 1 & 2 are applicants in OA No.87/2010).
3. K. Kumar,
S/o T.D.
Shivaswamy,
Aged 48
years,
Pointsman
'A'/Yadavagiri,
Door
No.101/vrc, Railway Quarters,
Yadavagiri, Mysore, Karnataka.
4. S. Lingaraju,
S/o Late
Siddaiah,
Aged 50
years,
Sweeper
cum Porter 'A'/Nanjangude,
No.C93, N
G O Colony, (Hawala Purada Huudi),
Nanjangude Town, Mysore, Karnataka.
5.K. Sadiq,
S/o Abdul
Kareem Sab,
Aged 48
years,
Pointsman
'A'/Harihar,
Door
No.14714, I Cross,
K.
Salagandhi Nagar, Harihar, Karnataka.
6. K.G. Balaraja,
S/o K.
Giddanna Gowda,
Aged 44
years,
Pointsman
'A'/Bhadravati,
DWC 217
A, Huthy Colony,
Bhadravati, Karnataka.
(Applicants No.4 to 6 are applicants in OA No.387/2010)..
Applicants
(By
Advocate M/s. Ratio Legis)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. By
the General Manager,
South
Western Railway,
Hubli.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Mysore
Division,
South
Western Railway,
Mysore.
3. The senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Mysore
Division,
South
Western Railway,
Mysore. ... Respondents
(By
Advocate Shri N. Amaresh on behalf of
Shri M.
Ramesh, Counsel for Railways)
O
R D E R
Hon;ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :
These O.As arefiled on 18.2.2010
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with a prayer to
empanel the two appicants for the post of Goods Guard in the scale of
Rs.5200-20200 against 60% promotion quota, which has not been done as seen from
Annexure-A/9 dated 21.10.2009 which is a panel prepared by including 4 other
employees who have passed the written examination held on 25.8.2009, but
excludes the names of the present 2 applicants.
The crux of the case is a trade off between safety in Railways Vs. 2
stage lowering of benchmark qualification to acommodate reserve categories.
2. Briefly, the applicants rely on para
180 of IREM (Indian Railway Establishment Manual) which states thus:
"...
all railway servants belonging to the Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial
Departments in the lowest grade should be eligible for consideration for
promotion to higher grade in both the Transportation and Commercial
branches. Applications should be invited
from amongst categories eligible for promotion from both the branches. All Railway servants who apply will be
considered. An adhoc seniority list will
be prepared on the basis of length of continuous service in the grade and
suitable men selected and placed on a panel for training. Systematic and adequate training and
examinations or tests must precede actual promotions."
3.
Under para 124 (1) of the IREM, vacancies inthe
category of Goods Guard are to be filled by 3 methods, namely,
(a) Direct
Recruitment through open market;
(b)
General seniority from the regular employees;
(c) by
promotion from amongst serving junior employees through a process of
selection.
The ration
for these 3 categories have been changed by the Railway Board from time to time
depending on their requirements.
4. In the year 2007, the Railways
conducted selection for filling up 7 vacancies in the cadre of Goods Guard out
of which3 were for SC and 1 was for ST and the remaining 3 were for general
category. It is the claim of the
applicants that 43 employees including the applicants had qualified in the
written examination as per letter No. Y/P.608/I/G.gds/Vol.VI, dated 8.1.2008
(Annexure-A/5), but, no empanelment was made.
Thereafter, on 12.2.2008, a fresh selection was called for filling up 21
vacancies vide Annexure-A/6. This
selection was cancelled vide letter dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure-A/7). Thereafter, once again a fresh selection was
called for by order No. Y/P.608/I/G.gds/Vol.IX, dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-A/8)
for 22 vacancies in which there was one vacancy reserved each SC and ST and out
of the 93 aspirants who took the examination, only 4 were declared to have
qualified by the impugned order at Annexure-A/9, dated 21.10.2009.
5.
The applicants' main claim lies on 3 grounds. First being that the Railways have failed to
apply the correct rule for reservation.
Secondly, the applicants claim
that Railways have neglected para 180 of IREM by not providing systematic and
adequate training to be given to aspiring candidates before the examination and
selection. The applicants also claim
that the respondents compelled them to partake in the selection proceedings
immediately following strenuous night duties without proper rest.
6.
As per first claim, applicants belong to reserved
communities and have qualified in almost all the written examinations and also
have enough seniority and hence, they must find a place in the final
panel. Even if they have fallen short of
the qualifying marks prescribed in the written examination, the marks obtained
by them should be upgraded in order to allow them to fill up the vacancies of
reserved categories.
7.
The respondents have opposed the
OA. They have first
and foremost submitted that the applicants at this stage cannot agitate the
matter regarding previous Examinations in which they had not qualified and the
prayer too remains confined to the order of 2009 only..
8. As far as not giving due training or
not giving adequate rest before actually partaking the Examination, the
Respondents submitted that this point should have been raised at the time of
taking the Examination which was not done.
But the real important question is whether there should be a relaxation
in the bench-mark qualification allowed for the reservation posts and to what
extent? This question is important
because the post of Goods Guard is very crucial in view of safety of the
Railway track to both passengers and the goods. At this stage the question of
properly calculating the reserved vacancies is not materially important, if the
applicants claim is denied under ground of non-qualification in the
Examinations and not on the ground of non-availability of the vacancies. The post of Points Man and Cabin Man belong
to safety category and so also the post
of Goods Guard. The present applicants
who belong to SC/ST Category complain about their lack of training and this
plea is only an afterthought. On the
question of rest, the Respondents point out that the 1st applicant
was on leave from 20.8.2009 to 24.8.2009 and the written Examination was held
on 25.8.2009 (Annexure-R/1). The 2nd
applicant was also relieved on 24.8.2009.
9. It is also submitted by the Respondents
that already some concession has been granted for the qualifying bench-mark to
the SC/ST candidates. Circular 31
Part-IV reads as under -
“However, in the case of SC/ST employees
50% marks in professional ability and 50% in aggregate (excluding marks for
seniority) for non-safety categories and 60% marks in professional ability and
60% marks in aggregate (excluding marks for seniority) for safety categories
would be required for enabling them to be empaneled.”
Thus, this
bench-mark is already lower then the bench-mark qualification required for the
open candidates. The present applicants
have not obtained even this qualifying bench-mark and hence, they cannot claim
to be empaneled.
10. The applicants in their rejoinder have
quoted RBE No. 57/95 which states that if during selection proceedings, the
requisite number of SC/ST employees are not available for being placed on the
panel in spite of various relaxations and concessions already granted to them,
the best among the failed SC/ST employees who secure a minimum of 20% marks
separately under each heading i.e. in the written test, viva-voce, record of
service, etc. and also in the aggregate , should be earmarked for being placed
on the panel to the extent the vacancies have been reserved in their
favour. However, we find that this RBE
is for the non-safety category and the applicants who are desirous of promotion
in the safety category cannot claim any benefit under it.
11. We have heard both the learned counsel
and perused all the records. We find no
merit in the case.
12. Before parting, however, we would like to
direct the Respondent-Railways that in view of their RBE No. 71/91 dated 11.4.1991,
they themselves have understood and appreciated the need for more training and hence, they should draw a proper training
program for all categories and these training programs should be updated and
every six months, and should be displayed on their website and the link for
this should appear on the home page of their website.
13.
Hence, the O.A. is dismissed. No order ad to costs.
(LEENA
MEHENDALE) (K.B.
SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
psp.
No comments:
Post a Comment