Non-communication of ACR entries and non-selection reasons adversely affecting promotion violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, questions the validity and propriety of the empanelled promotion list which has unjustifiably excluded him The petitioner is working as a Senior Section Engineer (Estimate), in the Office of the XEN/T & A/C, Bhubaneswar, under the Deputy Chief Engineer (Con), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. He appeared in the selection test conducted for the formation of Group-B Panel (AENs) against 70% for departmental promotion quota vacancies. According to the petitioner, in 2004, in the same East Coast Railway, some of the candidates, juniors to him, were empanelled for promotion, but the petitioner was illegally excluded from the list even though he had no adverse remark.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that out of 61 candidates appeared in the written examination, 23 candidates qualified in the written test, including the petitioner, and were called for the viva-voce test on 01.10.2004. It is further submitted that the entire selection process was transparent and full proof. There was no scope left for anybody to make any objection on the selection process. The said selection was conducted by a committee comprising 3 SAG/PHODs, i.e., Principal Chief Engineer (PCE), Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) and Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) who had been nominated by the General Manager, East Coast Railway. The committee includes PHOD (Principal Head of Department), i.e., in the present case, Principal Chief Engineer (PCE) who set the question papers for the written test. The answer sheets of the written test were evaluated by one of the SAG Officer of Engineering Department, i.e., CGE, who was also nominated by the General Manager.

Since it is the case of 70% departmental promotion quota, one Professional Paper of 150 marks was prescribed for the written test in addition to other tests. Finally, the Selection Committee submitted selection proceedings before the General Manager, who is the approving authority.

The candidates who secured 60% marks in the written examination i.e. 90 marks out of 150, qualified for the viva-voce test and were sent for medical examination before the viva-voce test. In the instant case, the petitioner was also sent for medical examination before the viva-voce was conducted. In terms of the Railway Board's letter No. E(GP) 80/2/8 dated 31.10.1991 and as per the instructions contained in Para-206.2 of IREM-Vol. I, condition stipulated in the above circular and rules are mandatory in nature and at no point of time, deviation or relaxation is permitted to anybody. Accordingly, those who come out successful both in the written test as well as in medical test, were called upon to face the viva-voce test.

In the viva-voce test, out of total 50 marks, 25 marks are allotted for Record of Service and 25 marks allotted for viva-voce as per the instructions issued by the Railway Board. Candidates those who secured 60% marks, i.e., 30 marks out of 50 marks (including at least 15 marks in the Record of Service) become eligible for final empanelment in order of their integrated seniority against 70% quota vacancies. The petitioner was also found fit in the medical test, and accordingly appeared in the viva-voce test on the said date. After conclusion of the viva-voce test, the opposite party No. 3 published a provisional panel of the successful candidates wherein the name of the petitioner was conspicuously absent.

3. Being aggrieved by the said Empanelment order dated 09.03.2006, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide O.A. No. 623 of 2006. His contention before the Tribunal was that he is senior to candidates especially opposite party Nos. 5 to 12. It was also contended by the petitioner that his service career was clean and unblemish. He has also not been subjected to any adver