Judgment:
ORAL ORDER:
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)
Heard Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for respondent Railways.
2. This application is filed to refix the seniority of the applicant in the combined seniority list of Group 'B' Gazetted Officers of Transportation, Traffic and Commercial Department for the purpose of future promotions and to fix the seniority of the applicant over and above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12.
3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant while working as Senior Commercial Inspector appeared in the selection for the cadre of Assistant Commercial Manager in the Commercial Department against the 70% quota to which Senior Commercial Inspector is the feeder cadre. Selection consists of written examination, viva-voce and medical test. The applicant qualified in the written test and he was called for interview and thereafter, he was qualified both in medical test and viva voce. According to the applicant, he was qualified for empanellment. But before releasing the list of qualified persons to fill up the six vacancies, the 2nd respondent cancelled the entire selection proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1107/2004 and this Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets of the six candidates once again and to decide the qualified candidates. Accordingly, the respondents reevaluated and found that the applicant and another were duly qualified. Thereafter, a panel was prepared on 16.06.2005 and issued proceedings dated 17.06.2005 promoting the applicant. In the mean time, subsequent to the selection conducted for Asst. Commercial Managers, some other selections were conducted in respect of the Assistant Operating Managers and Assistant Traffic Managers in different streams against the 70% quota in their respective streams. Those selections were also for Group B Gazetted Officers. In respect of those selections, panels were prepared on 03.05.2005 and promotion orders were given on 06.05.2005. In those selections, the respondents 4 to 12 herein were selected and were promoted. Though their selections were subsequent to the selection conducted in respect of the Assistant Commercial Managers in which the applicant herein participated and got qualified, they were given appointments earlier than the applicant and therefore, the applicant was shown as junior to them on the ground that empanelment of the applicant was only done on 16.06.2005, whereas the empanelment of the unofficial respondents 4 to 12 was done on 03.05.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present application contending that selection process to form a panel for the Group B posts of Assistant Commercial Manager was over by the date of cancellation i.e. 13.07.2004.
4. The respondents contested the application contending that the select list was not released and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was empanelled by the date of cancellation of the selection and the date of entry into the post will be the criteria for fixing the seniority and that as the unofficial respondents were empanelled earlier than the empanelment of the applicant, they were rightly shown as seniors to the applicant and there are no merits in this application and the application is liable to be dismissed. So far as the unofficial respondents 4 to 12 are concerned, none of them have contested the application and it shows that they have no objection for granting relief to the applicant. The applicant is not claiming any arrears on account of ante date empanelment. He has only requested for revising the seniority by putting him above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12.
5. The points that arise for consideration in this application are :
(i)Whether the applicant can be placed in the combined seniority list above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12?
(ii) To what result?
6. Point No. (i) : It is not disputed that the selection process for empanelment of Assistant Commercial Managers was taken up earlier than the commencement of the selection process in which the unofficial respondents 4 to 12 are selected. It is also not disputed that the applicant was duly qualified to be empanelled in the panel. Had there been no cancellation, he would have been empanelled in July 2004. It is also not disputed that this Tribunal set aside the cancellation order and directed the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the applicant if they got suspicion about the entitlement of the applicant. Accordingly, the respondents re-evaluated the answer paper of the applicant and found that he was duly qualified and there were no irregularities. So it is clear that for no fault of the applicant, he could not be empanelled in July 2004. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the applicant is entitled for seniority over and above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12. But so far as the monetary benefits are concerned, the applicant, though claimed in the original application, gave up his claim in the rejoinder filed by him. During the course of hearing also, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not interested in monetary benefits and he is only interested in getting his due seniority. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
7. In the result, O.A. is disposed of directing the official respondents to revise the combined seniority list and place the applicant above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.