JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. Heard Mrs. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Mahua Palit and Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgement dated 9th December, 2015, passed in O.A. No. 260/2012(R) (Annexure-13) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, at Ranchi, whereby O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The O.A was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.11.2012 (Annexure-10) as well as the order dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure-12) whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages to his original post as consequential relief.

Arguments of the Petitioner.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the General Manager of Railways have discretionary power to engage substitute in railways against Group-D post in terms of circular dated 04.11.1992 (Annexure-2) and amongst other, the said circular provides that the new appointment of new face as substitute should be made only with prior approval of the General Manager.

5. It has been argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, being an intermediate by qualification and a sports person (football player), applied vide several applications before the General Manager, East Central Railway, for consideration of his candidature for employment in Group-D post and his candidature was considered. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered temporary employment in Group-D post in the scale of Rs. 2550-3200 vide order dated 06.11.2006 (Annexure-3) issued by the Assistant Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Raipur. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment on temporary basis was issued to the petitioner on the basis of C.P.O./BSP’s letter dated 03.11.2006 as is apparent from letter of appointment itself. After medical examination, the petitioner was allowed to join his post at Raipur vide an order dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure-4). The petitioner along with another namely Abhijit Dutta was sent for initial training and after completion of training the petitioner along with two others namely Abhijit Dutta and Kaushik Ghosh were spared for posting vide order dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-5).

6. It is the case of the petitioner that all the three new recruits including the petitioner were posted against the direct recruitment quota vide order dated 02.01.2007 (Annexure-6) issued by the Assistant Personal Officer (Cadre) Raipur for senior D.P.O./Raipur wherein it was categorically mentioned that the candidates named in part-A have been approved by the GM/SECR/BSP for engagement as Substitute Group-D in the scale of Rs. 2550-3200 (RSRP) against direct recruitment quota vide CPO/SECR/BSP’s letter dated 03.11.2006 and on successful completion of safety training course, they were posted as sub porter at the station mentioned therein.

7. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with others were performing their duties in the post of sub porter and they were issued letter dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure-7) by the Assistant Personal Officer, at Raipur and were directed to appear on 16.05.2007 for their screening for regular absorption of substitute helper in the scale of 2550-3200 and upon appearing, vide order dated 19.06.2007 (Annexure-8) the petitioner was declared suitable by the duly constituted screening committee and was regularized in his service w.e.f. 30.05.2007. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for mutual transfer which was accepted vide office order dated 05.06.2008 and the petitioner was transferred from Raipur Division of South East Central Railway, to Aadra Division of South Eastern Railway upon mutual transfer and he joined the post at Pu