R. Satapathy, Administrative Member
This application has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
To cal for the records pertaining to bearing No. 158/99 dated 23.11.1999 and order bearing No.P[S]443/1/893/2007 dated 14.07.2008 of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix the appropriate seniority position of the applicants by revising the seniority list dated 18.03.2005 and 31.01.2007 in the post of JE /II/Works and grant all consequential benefits including higher promotion and pass such further or other orders which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and render justice.â
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Casual Labour on 07.12.76 and he was empanelled as Group D on regular basis as Gangman on 08.01.89 and confirmed in the year 1991 and promoted as Supervisor Group C during 1997 in the regular cadre.
3. The respondents have issued notification No P[S]608/1/S/GDCE/97 ON 20.08.97 calling for volunteers from serving regular employees who fulfilled the conditions stipulated therein for appearing in GDCE examination for the post of Junior Engineer II and the last date for submitting their willingness was fixed as 10.09.97. The applicant states that he had expressed his willingness along with other volunteers. The applicant further submitted vide letter No. M/P.1/W.608/Selection dated 06.05.98 the respondents have published a list of volunteers which includes casual labourers in the construction Branch in Divisional Office. On 22.06.98 the respondents published a provisional panel of GDCE. The respondents vide order No. 79/98 dated 06.07.98 published a list of selected candidates for the post of JE Gr.II in which the applicant name figure at Sl.No. 115. Vide office order No. 158/99 dated 23.11.99 the respondents published a list of selected candidates who have passed the final examination and therein the applicants name figure at Sl. No166. Two seniority lists dated 18.03.2005 and 31.01.2007 were published, in which the applicants name figure at Sl. Nos. 178 and 159 respectively. The grievance of the applicant is that casual labourers, who were never regular staff, were illegally allowed to appear and because of that his seniority position was low in the seniority list. He submitted representations on 20.9.2007 and 28.09.2007 for fixing his seniority properly. As there was no response, he was forced to file O.A. NO. 893/2007. The said O.A was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations filed by the applicant. The respondents vide order dated 14.07.2008 rejected the request of the applicant and uphold the seniority list published earlier. Thereafter the applicant preferred another O.A. No. 864/2008. However this O.A. was withdrawn by the applicant with a prayer seeking liberty to file fresh O.A challenging the select list published during 1999 and 31.01.2007. The main ground urged by the applicant is that instead of allowing the casual labourers to appear in the selection against 25 % quota, the respondents allowed them to appear against 75% quota. Hence this O.A seeking the relief as extracted above.
4. Upon notice the respondents have entered appearance, filed a detailed reply denying averments made in the O.A except those which are admitted based on record. It is submitted by the respondents that a notification dated 20.08.97 was issued calling for volunteers from serving employees who fulfill the eligibility conditions for the post of JE.II through General Departmental Competitive Examination. It is admitted in the reply that casual labourers have also volunteered in response to the above notification. In terms of Railway Boards letter dated 09.04.97 all casual labourers in Group C are to be given a chance to appear in examination conducted by RRB. Further in the notification dated 09.04.97 it has been clearly mentioned that casual labourers/substitutes in Group C are also entitled for appearing in the GDCE and hence the contention of the applicant that casual labourers were illegally allowed to appear in the competitive examination has no force. It is also submitted that the panel was drawn as per merit. The applicant was placed at Sl. No. 178 in the provisional panel. It is also stated that after viva voce test, the panel in the order of merit was issued on 22.06.98 in which the applicants name was placed at Sl. No. 194. In terms of para 303 (a) of IREM Vol. I, wherever training is pre-requisite the seniority will be based on the merit, after the final examination after completion of training. It is contended by the respondents that the applicant is challenging the panel published in the year 1998 in the year 2010 after a lapse of 11 years and therefore the O.A is barred by limitation. Based on the above the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the O.A. Since the seniority list was published for the first time in 2007, the applicant is not agitating his grievance belatedly and hence the O.A is filed within time.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the documents carefully. The respondents, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in K.A. Nagmani vs. Indian Airlines and ors. [ (2009) 5 SCC 515] contended that the applicant having participated in the selection process along with other persons without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn round and question the very same process for placing higher in the panel.
7. We have carefully considered the above arguments. We are of the view that the applicant having participated in the selection without any demur/protest and accepted the terms and conditions of the examinations cannot now turn round and question the very same selection. Further in the notification dated 20.08.97, below para 3 C it had been stated as under:
âAll CLs/Substitutes who had earlier worked in Group C scale if they are diploma holders in civil Engineering may apply to the post of JE/II Works in scale Rs.1400-2300 without any age bar.â
We are of the view that the selection has been conducted as per the notification dated 20.08.1997. Now the applicant cannot say that he did not know that casual labourers were allowed to participate in the selection illegally. The selection cannot be challenged at this belated stage because in the notification itself it has been clearly stated the categories that are eligible to participate. Hence this argument fails. The applicant has not proved that there is violation of any statutory provision. The selection process cannot be interfered with when there is no mala fide or violation of any statutory rules or regulations. In the instant case the applicant has not brought out any proof that the selection was done in an unfair manner or there is violation of statutory rules. It is not the case of the applicant that any unqualified candidate has been selected. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the selection.
8. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 14.07.2008 and 23.11.99. The O.A is liable to be dismissed. The O.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.