The Tribunal held that cancellations of promotional selections must be based on clear procedural grounds, ensuring due process, and ruled reinstatement for the applicant as there were no proven irregularities against him.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Reversion from promotional post - The applicant challenged the order of reversion and sought reinstatement with pay level benefits, post selection process and subsequent cancellation based on procedural irregularities. - Relevant procedural guidelines from IREM and RBE, following recommendations from an inquiry committee that determined there were serious irregularities within the selection process, leading to the final decision to cancel the selection panel. The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant's case based on established regulations without claims of malpractice. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Procedure and Validity in Selection Processes - The Tribunal underlined the discretionary powers of authorities to modify selection panels under sufficient grounds while ensuring candidates are provided clarity on procedural lapses before being reverted. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was initially appointed in Gr. ‘D’ category and subsequently promoted to higher posts, having successfully completed training and selection processes, only to face cancellation of the selection and reversion contradictions in adherence to the rules.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no procedural irregularities against the applicant himself, hence directed reinstatement, aligning with prior rulings where similar allegations were unproven.

Issues: Core issue is whether the applicant faced procedural irregularities in selection and consequent reversion.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal emphasized the necessity for reasoned procedures in promoting candidates and held that if the applicant's APAR had been duly reviewed by the appropriate authority, his prior promotion should be upheld.

Result: O.A. stands disposed of directing respondents accordingly.

Table of Content
1. overview of the applicant's promotion and subsequent cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions raised by the applicant and their relevance. (Para 4)
3. tribunal's review of procedural adherence. (Para 5)
4. implications of irregularities and the proper authorities' role. (Para 6)
5. final ruling regarding reinstatement and benefits. (Para 7)

ORDER

Per Ms. Urmita Dutta (Sen), Judicial Member:

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 praying for the following reliefs:-

“8.1. To quash and set aside the purported order of reversion dated 08.02.2024 issued vide office order No. E- 12/Engg/Selection/JE/LDCE/PRQ/P.Way issued by respondent no.4.

8.2. To direct the respondent authorities particularly the respondent no. 4 to disclose the actual procedural lacunae in details to the applicant for reasons of which applicant had suffered the order of reversion from his promotional post.

8.3. To direct respondent no. 3 and 4 to resume the payment of salary of your applicant at the scale of promotional post i.e. level 6 and not to pass any direction of reducing the pay and/or recover the pay already made.

8.4. Show cause in terms of prayer 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 and after hearing the cause make the rule absolute.

8.5. A direction as to costs of the proceedings to the respondents;

8.6. Any further order or orders, direction or directions as the Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

2. The applicant was initially appointed in Gr. ‘D’ category as Trackman in Engineering Department on 07.11.2013 (Annexure A/1). Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Track Maintainer – III in Pay Level 2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- on 08.03.2019 (Annexure A/2). Thereafter, on being found suitable in a suitability test held on 24.06.2021, he was promoted to the post of Track Maintainer – II in pay matrix level 4 against 100% promotional quota working in Engineering Department under SSE/P.Way/BQG (Annexure A/3). On 14.12.2021, the respondent authorities issued a notice for filling up vacancy in the category of JE/P. Way in Pay Matrix level 6 against 20% LDCE quota in terms of PCPO/KKK’s Sl. Circular No. 149/2014 (RBE No. 120/2014 wherein the total number of vacancies were 11, out of which 10 posts were reserved for UR quota, 01 post was reserved for SC quota. The applicant having requisite qualification as per the notification applied for the said post against SC quota (Annexure A/4). Sparing letter dated 16.08.2022 was issued in favour of the applicant and he was directed to attend SSE/P.Way/BQG (Site Office BPC) at 09:30 hrs on 17.08.2022 in connection with Pre-promotional SC/ST training for 21 working days. The applicant attended the training as directed by Sr. Section Engineer/P.Way/In-charge/Bhagwangola Eastern Railway. In the meanwhile, the respondent authorities issued letter dated 21.10.2022 notifying the date of examination which was fixed on 05.11.2022 at DRM Building, Sealdah and later on rescheduled on 19.11.2022 at the same place. The respondent authorities again by letter dated 15.11.2022 notified the date of examination which was fixed on 19.11.2022 and rescheduled the examination on 04.12.2022 and finally the examination was postponed to 14.01.2023. However, again the date of examination was rescheduled and fixed on 04.02.2023 at the same place. The applicant states that the Sr. Section Engineer/P.Way/In- charge/Bhagwangola, Eastern Railway vide letter dated 01.02.2023 had spared him to attend the written examination for selection to the post of JE/P.Way against 20% LDCE Quota with GP 4200 Level – 6. The applicant was declared successful in the said selection process and the selection committee had recommended the names of 11 candidates including the applicant for promotion to the post of JE/P.Way and their recommendation was also approved by the competent authority on 30.06.2023 and in the said letter it was categorically men

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12545

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMs. Urmita Datta (Sen), JM, Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, AMKOUSHIK PRAMANIK – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA – RespondentO.A. 350/00752/2024

The Tribunal held that cancellations of promotional selections must be based on clear procedural grounds, ensuring due process, and ruled reinstatement for the applicant as there were no proven irregularities against him.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), JM, Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, AM
KOUSHIK PRAMANIK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
O.A. 350/00752/2024