Corrective measures in promotion panels can be validly enacted based on irregularities discovered, conforming to administrative procedures.

ORDER

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Rachna Dubey, learned counsel for the official respondents, Shri S. K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985, has been filed by the applicant, seeking following reliefs:

“a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26/27.11.2014 (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation No. I), with all consequential benefits to the applicant

b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief, as the applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout.

3. The facts, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant joined the respondents’ department on 08.10.1986 as an Assistant Loco Pilot under the Delhi Division of the then undivided Northern Railways and was later transferred, by way of mutual transfer, to Jhansi Division on 19.07.1990. After completion of the requisite period of service, over the years, he earned successive promotions to Shunter, Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger), and finally Loco Pilot (Mail) in 2009. Thereafter, in 2011, a notification was issued for selection to the post of Loco Inspector in Jhansi Division. Being eligible, the applicant applied for the same and appeared in the written examination held in July–August 2012. After completion of the selection process, a letter dated 15.10.2012 was issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, setting out the provisional panel, mentioning the name of the applicant at serial no. 15. Thereafter, the said provisional panel dated 15.10.2012 fructified into a regular promotion/posting order dated 17.10.2012, whereby the applicant was promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI). He joined and worked on the promotional post without any complaint.

3.1 Subsequently, in August 2013, pursuant to the judgment dated 31.01.2013 of this Tribunal in OA no. 110/2013 filed by one Shri Jasvinder Singh, minor changes were made to the panel due to revision of marks of other candidates, which slightly changed the applicant’s merit position from 15 to 16, but he continued working as CLI. However, on 26/27.11.2014, more than two years after his promotion, the respondents suddenly issued an order deleting his name from the select panel and inserting the name of the respondent-5, allegedly based on an undisclosed complaint. This was done without giving him any notice or opportunity to be heard. It is the contention of the applicant that since he had already been regularly and unconditionally promoted against a vacant post, the select panel had ceased to exist and could not be modified after such a long time and the said order is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it has been stated that a notification dated 09.08.2011 was advertised by the respondents for filling up 28 posts of Loco Inspector (including 18 posts for General candidates) and in pursuance of the written test, a provisional panel was declared vide letter dated 15.10.2012. Thereafter, certain complaints were received from the individuals regarding discrepancy in evaluation of the answer sheets and APARs in respect of certain employees and after d