Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5171
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta, J
MANOJ KUMAR MONDAL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
O.A. 350/01232/2013|CP. 350/00064/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B. Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Mr. T.K. Chatterjee
The absence of a public advertisement for substitute recruitment does not violate legal provisions if the process complies with established guidelines allowing for urgent appointments.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Appointment of substitutes - Applicants challenged the appointment of substitutes without proper advertisement, alleging violation of constitutional rights to equal opportunity in public service - The Tribunal found no mandatory requirement for public notification for substitute appointments as per RBE No. 137/2010 - The engagement process was deemed compliant with applicable regulations. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Employment Law - The principles of fair recruitment and the necessity of following established procedures were emphasized, but the court upheld the authority's discretion in engaging substitutes without public advertisement under specific circumstances. (Paras 2, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, comprising various unemployed individuals, sought to quash an order regarding the appointment of substitutes at Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, arguing that such appointments were made without proper advertisement and violated their rights to equal opportunity.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the respondents acted within their rights as per the Railway Board's instructions and that there was no requirement for public advertisement for substitute appointments under the circumstances presented.
Issues: The main issues included whether the lack of advertisement for substitute positions violated the applicants' rights and the legality of the appointments made without such notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a public notification for substitute recruitment did not violate any legal provisions, as the process followed was in line with the Railway Board's policy, which allowed for flexibility in urgent appointments.
Result: O.A. dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought under administrative tribunals act. (Para 2) |
| 2. procedure for engagement of substitutes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. grievances regarding engagement without advertisement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. compliance with railway board's circular. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. no requirement for public notification for substitutes. (Para 12) |
| 6. application dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 13) |
O R D E R
Per Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:
The instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
“a) To quash and set aside the impugned speaking order dated 13.04.2013 passed by the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, CLW, Chittaranjan being No.GMA/MR/Court Case/MKM/12,
(b) An order directing the respondents, their agents, subordinates and successors to publish open advertisement for appointment of substitutes and to allow the applicants to compete in such selection process;
(c) An order do issue directing the respondent authority to declare the appointments in 2008 and thereafter of the all persons as 'substitute' against Group 'D' unadvertised permanent vacancies to be illegal, unconstitutional, unfair, malafide and hence void;
(d) An order do issue recommending investigation by independent agency:
(e) An order do issue directing the respondent authority to produce all the records of Group 'D' appointments from 2008 uptill now;
(f) An order do issue directing the respondent authority that they may kindly be allowed to file and prosecute this application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rule, 1987;
(g) And to pass any other order or orders, direction or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
2. The admitted facts that arise from pleadings are as under:-
The applicants state that Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (in short referred in this Order as CLW) is an Organisation under the Ministry of Railways, governed by Railway Board and managed by the General Manager as per Indian Railways Act, 1989 being guided by instructions issued by Railway Board from time to time. In CLW, there is a provision for engagement of Substitutes against various posts which fall vacant due to non-availability of permanent or temporary Railway Servant being on leave and which cannot be kept vacant. These Substitutes can only be recruited against permanent or temporary employees who are on leave or are unavailable due to some or the other reasons. Para 1513 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual stipulates that ordinarily there should be no occasion to engage ‘Substitute’ having regard to the fact that practically in all categories of Railway servants leave reserves have been provided. However, when there is abnormally high rate of absentees, the leave reserve may become inadequate or insufficient due to heavy sickness and it is not possible to provide the same, there only it may become absolutely necessary to engage Substitutes even in vacancies of short duration. It also mandates that Substitutes should be provided from a panel drawn up from suitable candidates selected from Group ‘C’ and Gr. ‘D’ and should be engaged against regular vacancies of unskilled and other categories of Gr. ‘D’ staff requiring replacement against which arrangements cannot be made from the existing leave reserve, against a chain vacancy in lower category of Group ‘D’ staff arising out of the incumbent in a higher Gr. ‘D’ category being on leave which post is not possible to be filled up from within the leave reserve, against posts in categories where no leave reserve has been provided and against vacancies in other circumstances notified by the Railway Board from time to time.
The applicants claims that as per prescribed procedure, only for contingency requirement of engaging Substitute, a panel of suitable candidates has to be maintained and in case of urgency they ought to be engaged as per seniority from the said panel. Para 1514 of the IREM provides that a Substitute s
