Judgment:
HON'BLE SMT. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The applicant seeks inclusion in the panel for promotion to the cadre of Commercial Clerk against 33 1/3% quota having qualified in the selection.
2 The applicant is presently working as Peon in the office of the Station Manager, Southern Railway Trivandrum Division. Aggrieved by the non-selection despite having qualified in the selection for promotion to the post of Commercial Clerk against 33 1/3% quota, he approached this Tribunal through O.A. 262/1999, which was dismissed. He moved the High Court through OP No. 7278/2002 which was allowed (A-2) directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicant in accordance with law in the light of the decision in OP 14500/2003 and O.A. 1761/98 (A-3). The applicant was of the bonfide belief that the 1st respondent will obey the orders. While so, he received communication stating that the matter is referred to Railway Board on 11.3.2008 (A-4) The applicant preferred a Contempt case No. 600/2008 in OP 7278/2002 which was closed giving liberty to the applicant to take Appropriate action (A-5). Hence he filed this O.A. to quash A-4, direct the respondents to include him in A-1 panel, to grant the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. The applicant has based the OA on the grounds that the respondents are bound to implement A-2 judgment, he was denied the benefit of inclusion despite qualifying in the selection and Annexure A4 is arbitrary and discriminatory.
3 The respondents submitted that the judgment of the High Court in WP(C) 14500/2003 based on which the applicant's case was disposed of by the High Court, has been challenged before the Apex Court and the matter is pending. On facts, they submitted that the applicant is a Box Boy and is temporarily working as a Peon. They Submitted that the direction in OP No. 7278/2002 has been implemented by the impugned order dated 27.3.08.
4 The applicant filed rejoinder stating that his junior is included in Annexure A-1 panel. He has asserted that he came out successful in the written test for appointment on promotion against 33 1/3% quota of vacancies was called for interview but his name was not included. He submitted that the respondents cannot now take a ground of non-eligibility of the applicant at this distant point of time being hit by res judicata. As regards the filing of SLP before the Apex Court, the Applicant pointed out that there is no order staying the judgment of the High Court preventing implementation of the judgment of the High Court.
5 The Tribunal had directed the respondents to file an affidavit indicating whether the persons in O.A. 12761/98/ OP 14500 /2003 viz. V.K. Krishnan, K.P. Davamani and S. Appachatty have been given the relief or not. The respondents filed an affidavit to the effect that Shri V.K. Krishnan was promoted as Ticket Collector against 33 1/3% Promotional quota on 5.2.2007, K.P. Davamani was promoted as Goods Guard w.e.f. 6.7.2007 during the selection held subsequently and that Appachatti was promoted as Train Clerk w.e.f. 1.11.2003 on account of cadre restructuring. They further submitted that the three were not given reliefs as the case is still sub judice before the Apex Court.
6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings.
7 The grievance of the applicant is that he was denied inclusion in the panel despite qualifying in the selection based on an erroneous policy of determining inter-se seniority of the persons belonging to the feeder cadres. He drew our attention to the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in OP No. 14500/2003 and the decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 1761/98. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Department moved SLP 17164/2008 before the Apex Court and the matter is pending before the Apex Court and that the applicants in O.A. 1761/98 have not been granted the reliefs following the order in that O.A. and that as and when the SLP is decided, the case of the applicant will be considered accordingly.
8 In this view of the matter, we do not think it proper to adjudicate on the matter any further. Accordingly, we record the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and close the O.A. with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the SLP 17164/2008. With these remarks, the O.A is closed. No costs.