9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reversion to substantive post 2. Removal of name from the promotion panel 3. Opportunity to be heard before removal from the panel 4. Jurisdiction of the court over Railway Board decisions Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reversion to Substantive Post: The petitioner, who joined Bengal Nagpur Railway in 1945 and was later confirmed in a Class III post, was promoted to various positions over time. However, due to the merger of Bengal Nagpur Railway with East Indian Railway (renamed Eastern Railway), the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post by an order dated 29th May 1952, on the ground of being surplus to requirements. The General Manager later justified this reversion on the basis of "unsuitability." The court found that the reversion to the substantive post was not a punishment as the petitioner had no legal right to continue in an officiating post. 2. Removal of Name from the Promotion Panel: The General Manager also struck the petitioner's name from the panel of Class III staff approved for promotion to Class II posts. The court noted that according to the Indian Railway Establishment Code and related rules, promotions must be made based on the priority list prepared by Selection Boards. The court found no rule empowering the General Manager to override or strike out a name from the panel unilaterally. The removal of the petitioner's name from the panel without due process was deemed to affect his future chances of promotion, thus constituting a penal consequence. 3. Opportunity to be Heard Before Removal from the Panel: The court emphasized that the removal of the petitioner's name from the panel should have been preceded by an opportunity for the petitioner to show cause. The authorities failed to provide such an opportunity, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court held that before striking out the petitioner's name from the panel, the authorities should have given him a chance to defend himself. 4. Jurisdiction of the Court Over Railway Board Decisions: The respondents argued that the matter had been decided by the Railway Board, which was beyond the court's jurisdiction. However, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision, stating that not all departmental orders necessarily merge into appellate orders. Moreover, the Railway Board had not considered the specific issue of the petitioner's name being struck from the panel. Therefore, the court asserted its competence to address this issue. Judgment: The court made the rule absolute in part. While upholding the order of reversion to the substantive post, it quashed the portion of the General Manager's order that removed the petitioner's name from the promotion panel. A writ of certiorari was issued to set aside this part of the order, and a writ of mandamus directed the opposite parties to restore the petitioner's name to the panel. The court clarified that any removal from the panel must be done in accordance with the law, and this order would not affect other individuals in the panel who were not part of the case. No order as to costs was made.
|
