Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11741
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K.Haripal, Judicial Member, Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Viswavalsalan P.C. – Appellant
Versus
A.M.Abdul Sherief – Respondent
R.A.No.180/0010/2024 in M.A.No.180/00370/2024 in O.A.No.180/00253/2024|M.A.No.180/00452/2024 in R.A.No.180/0010/2024 in O.A.No.180/00253/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, Smt.Kala T Gopi, Sri.Kailesh T Gopi, Smt.Nishitha Balachandran
For the Respondents: Sri.Varun C Vijay, Smt.Divya Chandran, Sri. Alfred Lionel Winston M
Reserved category candidate securing merit above UR cutoff entitled to UR post; ex parte interim orders without notice reviewable as error apparent.
Headnote:The judgment involves selection for Chief Loco Inspector posts under suitability cum seniority criteria, with notification for 12 vacancies including reserved categories. Original applicant (UR category) challenged exclusion from panel while SC candidate was selected in UR slot on merit. Court found interim status quo order violated procedural fairness under relevant tribunal rules. Core issue: Validity of interim order passed ex parte without notice to affected party. Ratio: Review allowed due to error apparent on record—order passed without notice or documents furnished, contravening S.24 Administrative Tribunals Act; SC/ST candidate's merit selection in UR upheld per precedents. Review application and misc application allowed; interim order dated 24.04.2024 reviewed and revoked. OA posted for final hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of selection process and challenge to ur slot allocation. (Para 2 , 3 , 11) |
| 2. procedural history of oa admission and ex parte interim order. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on review maintainability and technical objections overruled. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 17 , 20) |
| 4. merit-based ur selection for reserved candidate upheld. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. ex parte order reviewed and revoked for procedural error. (Para 13 , 15 , 19 , 21) |
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal
The Review Applicant is the 5th respondent in the Original Application instituted by the 1st respondent against official respondents 2 to 5 and the review applicant. Parties will hereinafter be referred to in their position in the Original Application.
2. The original applicant as well as the 5th respondent are Loco Pilots/Mail attached to the Office of the Chief Crew Controller, Southern Railway, Ernakulam South Station and Kollam Railway Station respectively. The 3rd respondent had issued notification, Annexure-A1, proposing to conduct selection for filling up 12 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7 in Electrical Operations Department of Trivandrum Division, 10 posts in UR and 1 post each reserved for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes respectively. It is the common case that a list of 18 candidates were drawn up, as evident from Annexure-A2, after conducting written examination on 23.01.2024, who secured requisite qualifying marks. It is submitted by the applicant that the selection had to be conducted following Annexures-A4 and A5, which hold the field, basing on suitability cum seniority. The suitability is based on written examination along with APARs, service record and driving record. The selection process was conducted by a committee of three officers as per laid down procedures. After the selection process, Annexure-A3 panel was drawn up as recommended by the duly constituted selection committee. Even though both the Original Applicant and the 5th respondent were qualified in the written examination, in the final selection, the 5th respondent was selected as serial No.7 against UR vacancy and the Original Applicant does not find place in the select list. The 5th respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste, whereas the Original Applicant belongs to unreserved category.
3. The Annexure-A3 has been assailed to the extent it including the 5th respondent against UR category and excluding the applicant, which according to him, is unjust, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. So, a direction is sought against respondents 1 to 4 for passing orders removing the name of the 5th respondent from the panel and promoting the applicant to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in UR category.
4. The O.A. was admitted by a Division Bench of this Tribunal on 12.04.2024, on the eve of this summer vacation. No interim order was passed that day.
5. On 24.04.2024 when one of us was sitting as the Vacation Judge, M.A.370/2024 was moved seeking to direct the respondents to maintain status quo as against the 5th respondent until the O.A. is finally heard and disposed of. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Standing Counsel, an interim order was passed directing the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the 5th respondent as ordered in Annexure-A3. It is important to note that till that time, notice was not issued against the 5th respondent so that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to hear the version of the 5th respondent or his representative. Only on 24.04.2024 the Tribunal had ordered to issue notice to the 5th respondent by speed post.
6. Thereafter, this Review Application was filed on 15.05.2024 by the 5th respondent seeking to review the order in M.A.370/2024 and for re-hearing the matter.
7. According to the review applicant/5threspondent, the order dated 24.04.2024 has been passed without giving notice to him, which affects his promotion and is opposed to Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Secondly, such an
