Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1958 (7) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner was first of all appointed to the post of an Assistant Road Transport Officer, which was a post sanctioned only for six months. Upon expiry of that period, he reverted to his substantive post. On the 27th July, 1951 he was promoted to the post of officiating Assistant Commercial Officer (Operating Branch). This is a Class II post (gazetted). On 'the 14th April, 1952 the B. N. Railway merged with the East Indian Railway, which in its turn was renamed the Eastern Railway. On the 29th May, 1952 an order was passed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway to the effect that the petitioner being surplus to requirement will revert to Class III on and from the 1st June, 1952. It is said that owing to the regrouping of the Railways and due to a general tendency on the part of all employees not to go out of Calcutta, certain persons became surplus and had to be reverted back to their substantive posts. Against this order of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, the petitioner appealed to the General Manager on the 31st May, 1952. On the 7th June, 1952, an order was made by the General Manager as follows: "The General Manager has decided that you should be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ost and had no legal right to continue there. If the matter stood there, then, of course, no relief could be granted. But we have another part of the order, viz., that the General Manager struck his name out of the panel of Class III officers, who were to be promoted to Class II posts. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been sought to be established that this panel is of no consequence, and that, in any event, it was a panel for promotion to art officiating post. In my opinion, this stand cannot be supported. One could have understood if it was stated that by reason of the merger, the old selections had entirely vanished. On the contrary, in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Phul Chand Vaish it is stated that selections were now being made from amongst the staff whose names were in the approved panel, according to seniority and merits of the individual candidates. It is further stated that the petitioner's name was not on the panel since the 7th June,. 1952, and for that reason there is no question of supersession. Further, as I have already mentioned, the General Manager has actually removed the name of the petitioner from the panel as appears from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oard shall be subject to another selection by a Central Selection Board. 2. It is, therefore, clear that a Selection Board is contemplated by the rules. The Selection Board makes its recommendations and the appointments by way of promotion must be made in accordance with the priority in the list or panel prepared by the Selection Board. I do not find anywhere any rule enabling the General Manager himself to override a panel or to strike out the name of a person from the panel. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhury on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to a series of circulars and/or letters issued by the Railway Board which shows that there is a recognised procedure to be adopted in such cases. Reference has been made to the Railway Board's letters dated 14th November, 1944, 1st March, 1945, 12th April, 1946 and 26th August, 1953. Copies of the first three communications above-named have been filed and the respondents were called upon to produce the originals which they have failed to produce. However, this does not matter, because Mr. Kar appearing on behalf of the opposite parties himself relied upon them. These letters make it clear that for the purpose of selecting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , paragraph 12, where it has been said that by reason of the fact that the petitioner's name is no longer in the panel, no question of promotion arises and consequently, no question of supersession. It is implied, that in order to have a chance of promotion, the petitioner would have to be in the selection list, that is to say, in the panel. Mr. Kar appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has argued that a panel is but a stepping stone to the higher service and to be deprived of being included in the panel means nothing. I am unable to accept this argument. In view of the rules and regulations and the practice prevailing in the Railway which I have mentioned above, it appears that exclusion from the panel is fatal to an employee in Class III, so far as his chances of promotion are concerned. It is then said that the petitioner was given several chances to appear before a new Selection Board but he refused to appear. I have already pointed out the stand the petitioner took. He correctly said that the matter was being decided by the higher authorities and he could not appear before a Selection Board unless the authorities agreed that it would be without prejudice to his right .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates