Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 2212
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
Union of India represented by the Chief Personnel Officer & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Another - Respondents
Review Application No.13 of 2006 & W.P.M.P. No.17188 of 2006
Decided On : 30 August 2006
Eligibility alone does not entitle a candidate to a claim for promotion to Group-B service; successful completion of the selection process is required.
Headnote:
Railway Administration - Promotion Dispute - IREM Rules 201 to 204 - The court held that the second respondent's eligibility alone does not entitle him to a claim for Group-B service and that he must successfully undergo the selection process. The court found that the direction of the Tribunal to promote the second respondent was against the statutory rules in force and allowed the Review Application.
Fact of the Case:
The Railway Administration filed a Review Application against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the Administration to promote the second respondent to Group-B service. The Administration contended that the second respondent's eligibility alone does not entitle him to a claim for Group-B service and that he must successfully undergo the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the direction of the Tribunal to promote the second respondent was against the statutory rules in force and allowed the Review Application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the second respondent's eligibility alone entitled him to a claim for Group-B service or if he must successfully undergo the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second respondent's eligibility alone does not entitle him to a claim for Group-B service and that he must successfully undergo the selection process. The court found that the direction of the Tribunal to promote the second respondent was against the statutory rules in force.
Final Decision: The Review Application was allowed as the court found an error apparent on the face of the record, in that the specific stand taken by the Railways in the light of the statutory provisions had not been considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and was not taken note of by this Court.
(Review Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of this Court, passed in special original jurisdiction, dated 11.11.2005, made in W.P. No.36108 of 2005.)
P. Sathasivam, J.
Officers of the Railway Administration are the applicants in this Review Application.
2. The Railway Administration, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 19.07.2005, made in O.A. No.882 of 2004, filed W.P. No.36108 of 2005 before this Court, which was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The second respondent herein, viz., M. Sathiamurthy, joined Railways on 05.01.1979 as Apprentice Mechanic (Junior Engineer Grade-II) against unreserved vacancy through Railway Recruitment Board. At the time of his appointment, he had mentioned his community status as 'Hindu' (not specifically mentioned his caste). Treating him as an unreserved candidate, the Administration promoted him as Junior Engineer Grade-I with effect from 1.8.1982 on ad hoc basis and regularised as such from 1.1.1984. In the meantime, he had produced a Community Certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Manapparai, claiming that he belongs to Uraly caste, which is coming under ST Community. The administration advised him to obtain Community Certificate from the competent authority. Again, he produced a Community Certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravida Welfare, during 1984 and claimed the status of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Ultimately, he produced a community certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, during 1997 and the matter was referred to the District Collector, Trichy, to ascertain the genuineness.
In the meantime, the second respondent filed a Suit before the Sub-Court, Trichy, in O.S.No.367 of 2001 for declaration that he belongs to Uraly caste which is coming under ST community and O.A. No.39 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. Subsequently, he withdrew the suit in O.S. No.367 of 2001 on 26.08.2003. The Tribunal, by its order dated 30.04.2002, directed the applicants/Railways to treat the second respondent as a Scheduled Tribe candidate with effect from April 1984 on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravida Welfare. As against the said order, W.P. No.39888 of 2002 was filed before this Court and the same is pending as on date.
In the meanwhile, the second respondent filed another Application before the Tribunal in O.A. No.461 of 2004, praying for a direction to the Railway Administration to promote him to Group "B" service from 1991 and to grant actual benefits etc. The Tribunal disposed of the said Application with a direction to the Railway Administration to consider the representations of the second respondent dated 03.11.2003 and 29.02.2004 in accordance with Rules. Accordingly, those representations were disposed of by the General Manager, Southern Railway, under letter dated 13.07.2004. The second respondent was advised that, due to revision of seniority, he did not find a place within the zone of consideration arrived at three times the number of vacancies for the selection held during the year 1991. Even after applying the relaxed standards as provided in para 203.6 of IREM (Indian Railway Establishment Manual), his name did not come in the extended zone of consideration for Group "B" selection. Aggrieved by the disposal of the representation by which his claims were turned down, the second respondent filed another Original Application, viz., O.A. No.882 of 2004, before the Tribunal, challenging the said disposal and also seeking for a direction to promote him as Foreman Grade "B" from 01.07.1985; Foreman Grade "A" from 01.07.1987; and to grant Group "B" promotion against ST vacancies that arose against 70% regular selection from 1991 or on par with his junior G. Chandrasekaran, w
