Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2411
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, Mr. Anindo Majumdar, JJ
Buddana Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Railway – Respondent
O.A./866/2023
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Counsel; Mr. R. Halder, Counsel
Discretionary powers in appointments must be exercised judiciously; applicants cannot claim rights based on irregularities affecting others.
Headnote:(A) Railway Recruitment Rules - Discretionary Power of General Manager - The applicants sought to quash the Office Orders dated 15.12.2022 rejecting their appointment as Substitute Group 'D' due to age limits. The Tribunal found that the applicants were overaged as of 10.09.2008, and the General Manager's decision was a well-reasoned speaking order. (Paras 9, 19, 23)
(B) Discretionary Appointments - The court emphasized that discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously and transparently, and applicants cannot claim rights based on others' irregular appointments. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, included in a list of 303 candidates for Substitute Group 'D' positions, were denied appointments due to being overaged as of 10.09.2008, despite having applied within the permissible age limit in 2005.
Findings of Court:
The General Manager's order dated 15.12.2022 was upheld as a detailed and reasoned decision, dismissing the Original Application.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the age limit applied to the applicants and the exercise of discretionary power by the General Manager.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the General Manager's discretionary power must be exercised fairly, and the applicants' claims were not valid as they were overaged according to the established rules.
Result: The O.A. is accordingly dismissed.
ORDER
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member:
There are 04 (Four) applicants in the case namely Shri Buddana Srinivasa Rao (Applicant No. 1), Smt. S. Sharada (Applicant No. 2), Shri V. Suresh Patnaik (Applicant No. 3) and Shri Ashunath Bhattacharjee (Applicant No. 4). The applicants have filed the Original Application seeking following relief(s):
“a) Office Orders dated 15.12.2022 issued by the respondent No. 1 with respect to applicants along with the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of appointment in favour of the applicants to the posts of Substitute Group 'D' are not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same may be quashed;
b) An Order do issue directing the respondents to directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of appointment forthwith to the applicants, empanelled for grant of appointment to the post of Substitute Group 'D' wherefrom other empanelled candidates have already been granted appointment and further commanding them to act and proceed strictly in accordance with law;
c) To grant all consequential benefits;
d) To Call for the records; e) Costs and incidentals;
f) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.”
2. The applicants had applied to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway for appointment as “Substitutes” in Group “D” category under the GM’s discretionary power. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, vide Notice dated 02.11.2005 published three separate list of a total or 303 candidates who were recommended for appointment by the heads of Department. The applicants figured in the above mentioned lists. However, they were not offered appointment as “Substitute”, Group “D” post.
3. Being aggrieved, the applicant No. 1 alongwith 104 others applicants had earlier filed O.A. No. 935 of 2008 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, however, dismissed the said Original Application, vide Order dated 26.03.2010.
4. WPCT No. 100 of 2010 (Sk. Fakruddin & Ors. –vs- Union of India & Ors. was filed before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.
5. The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta had disposed of the aforesaid WPCT with the following directions:
“In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we dispose of this matter by observing that the Railways would be free to consider the petitioners strictly in accordance with the Rules and the petitioner would be obliged to participate in the Regular recruitment process to be held for their consideration and in case they pass through physical endurance test and/or recruitment process as per the Rules, they would be absorbed as regular employee.
We only hope that the Railways would not reject any petitioner on the ground of age eligibility bar provided such candidate was within the permissible age as on the date of making of the application before the Tribunal in 2008.
This concession has been made by the Railways considering the peculiarity of this case and must not create any precedent.
W.P.C.T. 100 of 2010 and W.P.C.T. 122 of 2010 are disposed of without any order as to costs.”
6. The applicants had thereafter filed O.A. No. 350/01418/2019 before this Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order dated 22.06.2022 with directions upon the respondent No. 1 to consider the prayer of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid Order of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT No. 100/2010. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the General Manager, South Eastern Railway (Respondent No. 1) considered the prayer of the applicant and passed Order dated 15.12.2022 whereby the prayer of the applicant was rejected.
7. In this O.A., the applicants have filed in the instant O.A. challenging the aforesaid Order of the General Manager dated 15.12.2022.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and have considered the material on record.
9. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Respondent N
