IMPORTANT POINT
Although selected candidates in the penal have no legal right to be appointed against advertised vacancies, the Tribunal committed a serious error in quashing the entire panel of selected candidates when none of the selected candidates or their representative was impleaded in the O.As.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence-The Railway Board issued notification inviting applications 330 Posts of Khalasis (Helpers)-Procedure prescribed in para 179 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual followed-Panel of selected candidates prepared-Quashed by CAT-Provisionally selected candidates contending that they had indefeasible right for appointment-Whether tenable? (No)-Case law referred.
       Held : Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies (Para 10)
       (ii) Service Jurisprudence-Railway Board issued notification inviting applications for 330 Posts of Khalasis (helpers)-Thousands of applications received and panel was prepared-Vacancies to be filled increased from 330 to 917 to be filled from same panel without there being second notification-Whether bad in law? (No).
       Held : The contention that the vacancies to be filled up could not be increased to 917 from 330 originally notified without there being subsequent notification is untenable in view of the changed situation as explained above. The time gap of about 8 months between the original notification and the decision to increase posts not being much, it cannot be said that many of the eligible candidates were deprived of applying for the posts looking to the requirements of eligibility. As already stated above, in the changed situation only 382 posts are to be filed up upto March, 2002. The selected candidates are to be appointed on the basis of merit following rules of reservation applicable to different categories. The process of selection was long-drawn and the candidates were made to appear for interview twice. The candidates and their families have been waiting for long time from 1995 with great hope of getting jobs. Enormous money and man hours have been spent in completing the process of selection in preparing the panel of selected candidates. In this view there was no justification for the Tribunal to quash the entire panel of selected candidates. (Para 12)
       (iii) Service Jurisprudence-Railway Board issued notification inviting applications for 330 Posts of Khalasis (helpers)-Panel of selected candidates made as per Rules-Unsuccessful challenged before CAT-Successful or their representatives not made parties-Tribunal quashing the entire list-Whether proper? (No)-Case law referred.
       Held : Although the candidates included in the panel showing their provisional selection do not get vested right to appointment, they will be surely interested in protecting and defending the select list. It is the admitted position that before the Tribunal the successful candidates whose names were included in the panel of selection were not made parties. The argument of the learned counsel that since the names and particulars of the successful candidates included in the panel were not given, they could not be made parties, has no force. The applicants before the Tribunal could have made efforts to get the particulars; at least they ought to have impleaded some of the successful candidates may be in a representative capacity; if the large number of candidates were there and if there was any difficulty in service of notices on them, they could have taken appropriate steps to serve them by any one of the modes permissible in law with the leave of the Tribunal. (Para 13)
       (iv) Service Jurisprudence-Railway Board issued notification inviting applications for 330 Posts of Khalasis (helpers) showing reservations for SC/ST/OBC-Handicapped and ex-serviceman-Number of vacancies increased-Upper age limit raised both for non-reserved and reserved candidates-Whether any prejudice was caused by increasing number of vacancies and raising age limit? (No). (Para 16)
       (v) Service Jurisprudence-Guidelines for giving 80 marks to successful candidates under various heads-Whether arbitrary? (No) (Paras 17 and 18)-Tribunal quashing selection list-Railway administration cancelling the employment notification-Writ petition against-Whether can be termed to have become infructuous? (No) (Para 20)-Result High Court rightly directed the authorities to proceed with selection panel-SLPs are dismissed.
       Held : In regard to the other contention that 80 marks were awarded to the candidates without any guidelines, the High Court has taken the view that there was no arbitrariness in awarding 80 marks under two heads. (Para 17)
       Having regard to the nature of different heads for which marks were to be awarded that too for filling up Group D posts of Khalasis, it cannot be said that there could be wide variance or arbitrariness in awarding marks. (Para 18)
       Held also : The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners in S.L.P. No. 14656 of 2000 that the writ petitions had become infructuous in view of the fact that I.F.C. Administration itself had cancelled the employment notification No.1 of 1995 dated 7.9.1995 accepting the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. The selected candidates who were seriously affected had every right to challenge the decision of the Tribunal on all the grounds available to them. The I.C.F. administration by its decision to cancel the employment notification and the panel of selected candidates unilaterally could not defeat or destroy the interest of the successful candidates. It is also submitted before us that the I.C.F. Administration pursuant to the judgment of the High Court passed in the writ petitions has given appointment to about 100 candidates from out of the panel of the selected candidates. This being the position, we are of the view that the writ petitions had not become infructuous. The High Court has also noticed that those candidates who had participated in the interview could not challenge the selection before the Tribunal. Thus having regard to all aspects including the changed situation as to the reduction of vacancies from 917 to 382 on the basis of the revised assessment of vacancies as already stated above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is just and appropriate. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any justification or valid reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Therefore, both the S.L.Ps. being devoid of any merit are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed but with no order as to costs in the circumstances of these cases. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-In these Special Leave Petitions, the judgment and order dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16766-16772 of 1999, 17167, 17878, 18834 & 20598 of 1999 and 4064 of 2000 are under challenge. S.L.P. No. 14656 of 2000 is filed by the applicants in O.A. No. 93/99 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench who were the respondents in the writ petition before the High Court. S.L.P. No. 2377 of 2001 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 16766 of 2000 in the writ petition before the High Court.

2. In short, the facts and events leading to filing of these Special Leave Petitions are:-

The Railway Board issued Employment Notification No. 1 of 1995 dated 7.9.1995 inviting applications for 330 posts of Khalasis (Group-D) reserving 19 of posts for Scheduled Castes, 1 for scheduled Tribes and 27 for OBCs besides 3 for Physically Handicapped and 20 for Ex-Servicemen. In response to the Notification, 58,675 applications were received, out of them 32,563 candidates were found eligible and called for interview. The Railway Board by its letter dated 17.5.1996 communicated its decision to prepare a panel for 917 vacancies on the ground of increase of vacancies from 330 to 917. The selection of candidates was to be made on viva voce test only. The candidates was to be made on viva voce test only. The candidates were interviewed from July 1996 to February 1997 by different committees. The composition of the committees was challenged in O.A. No.28/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The Tribunal by its order dated 17.9.1997 struck down the Railway Board s instructions on the basis of which committees were constituted for interview. Thereafter the Railway board issued fresh instructions on 29.4.1998 for constituting committees as per para 179 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I.R.E.M.). The second round of interviews were conducted afresh from 26.06.1998 to 28.09.1998 for 75 days by different committees. Out of 32,563 candidates, only 25,271 candidates appeared for the interview. Another O.A. No. 543/1998 was filed seeking direction that the course completed Act Apprentices should be given preference but the same was dismissed on 17.9.1998. Ultimately merit list was published on 22.12.1998 and a panel of 917 selected candidates was published in the newspapers on 30.1.1999. The candidates selected were informed about their selection.

3. O.A. No.93 of 1999. O.A. No. 103 of 1999, O.A. No. 153 of 1999, O.A. No. 202 of 1999, O.A. No. 260 of 1999 and O.A. No. 294 of 1999 were filed before the Tribunal challenging the selection of the candidates. O.A. No. 367 of 1999 was filed by a selected candidate seeking direction to complete the process and to issue appointment. The respondents resisted these O.As. on the grounds that O.As. filed in the nature of PIL were not maintainable; the applicants could not be said to be aggrieved persons without showing whether they were members of the association and whether they applied for the said posts; all the material allegations contrary to their stand made in the O.As. were denied; that the Railway Administration did not give any particular direction or instruction in the matter of selection and that no mala fide practice was followed. It was also pleaded that there was no violation of settled procedure and guidelines; the selection was made on the basis of performance of the candidates in the viva voce; further there was no arbitrariness in the selection of candidates and that the procedure followed in the earlier selection made in 1989-90 was followed in the present selection as well.

4. The Tribunal quashed the panel of selected candidates giving the reasons that number of vacancies originally notified were 330 but the panel of selected candidates had been drawn for 917 without earlier notifying the increase in vacancies; only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 674

Cases Referred (3)