The Tribunal erred in directing appointment from an expired selection panel, lacking jurisdiction as the application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification.

ORDER :

1. The Union of India and Railway Authorities are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 16.10.2023 passed in OA No.170/00051/2021, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench [For short ‘CAT’] whereby the respondent’s application praying to issue an appointment order on any of the vacant posts of Carriage and Wagon (C & W) anywhere under the jurisdiction of RRB [Railway Recruitment Board, Bengaluru] that too by creating a supernumerary post by adjustment from anticipated future vacancy, was allowed.

2. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the CAT for the sake of convenience. The petitioners herein were the respondents and the respondent herein was the applicant before the CAT.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the RRB by Employment Notice dated 16.6.2012 invited applications for various posts including that of “Technician Grade-III/C & W”. The applicant applied for the said post in pursuance of the above employment notice claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste [For short ‘SC’] category. It is stated that out of 104 posts notified, 16 posts were reserved for SC category. The RRB published final select list of C & W on 21.02.2013. It is stated that the name of the applicant was not found in the main list, however, his name was found in the waiting/additional list, which was published on the same day i.e. on 21.02.2013. It is noticed that the Master Circular No.32, Recruitment Rules and Recruitment of Non- gazetted Staff, Clause-22 states that, the currency of the Group ‘D’ panel in case of direct recruitment from the open market is one year. It also states that in exceptional circumstances, it can be extended by one more year with the approval of the Chief Personnel Officer, and under no circumstances, it should be extended beyond the period stated therein.

4. Out of 16 candidates selected under SC category, only 13 persons were reported to duty and three candidates failed to report to duty. Therefore, it is the case of the applicant that the said three posts, which fell vacant for non-reporting to duty by selected candidates, ought to have been filled up by operating the waiting/additional list. It is the case of the respondents that subsequent to expiry of the currency of panel, the posts were filled up by appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant approached the CAT by filing OA NO.170/00051/2021 on 7.9.2020, after seven years from the date of publication of final select list and appointment i.e., on 21.02.2013. The CAT under impugned order, allowed the said application and directed the respondents to consider the name of the applicant for appointment against one of the three vacancies, which were available in the year 2013 due to non-joining of candidates and by creating a supernumerary post by adjustment from anticipated future vacancy. The CAT while allowing the application, observed that the respondents had not specified as to what was the time frame available to them to call for additional names from the standby list of SC candidates, after three persons in the SC panel had not responded to the offer of appointment.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya S Hallikeri for the respondents/Union of India and learned counsel Sri. A.R. Patil for the applicant. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

6. Learned counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya S Hallikeri for the Union of India would submit that in pursuance of Recruitment Notice dated 16.6.2012, final select list of C & W was published on 21.02.2013. He submits that on the said date, waiting/additional list was also published and the validity of the said select list was one year, which came