9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Sahu, Adv., Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. H.K. Puri, Adv., Mrs Sarla Chandra, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Delay condoned. We will first deal with Civil Appeals @ SLP(c) Nos. 21902-03/04 and Civil Appeal @ SLP(c) no. 18603/05. These appeals, by special leave, are being filed in connection with the selection of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category of the Railways. The selection was held in the year 1984 and a written test was held on 26.5.1985 followed by an interview on 25.9.1985. Several candidates were selected. There was allegation that some of the candidates, who participated in the selection, indulged in malpractices in the examination and it appears that the selection Board has published a list which contains about 1000 candidates. Some o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the letter dated 17.2.1986 that their appointments should be made after including them at the appropriate places in the panel. The C.A.T. has directed the railway authorities to fix the specific position of the respondents in the panel for the purpose of determination in the inter se seniority against those appointed from the said panel and the relative position of the applicants in such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view the aggregate marks obtained by the applicants and the relative aggregate marks of the applicants who have already been appointed from the said panel. This order of the C.A.T. was challenged before the High Court contending that these respondents were appointed only in the year 1994 and that they cannot claim se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve aggregate marks of other candidates who had already been appointed from the panel. Thereafter the appellant Union of India (Ministry of Railways) has filed a review petition before the C.A.T. and the same was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond 30 days as prescribed under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the 1987 Rules). The appellant has challenged the same before the High Court and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the C.A.T. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Union of India. Learned Addl.Sol.General for the Union of India contended that the review petition filed by the appellant should have been allowed as there was sufficient cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggregate marks obtained by the applicants who have already been appointed from the said panel. It was contended on behalf of the Railways that the selection was held in the year 1984 and the records relating to the selection are not available with them as there was an accidental fire and the records have been destroyed. Moreover the respondent herein also is not successful in producing any document to show as to what is the aggregate marks obtained by her vis a vis the aggregate marks obtained by other candidates who had already been appointed. There is also no common panel prepared conjoining the selection made in the year 1984 and the persons appointed subsequently so that the seniority could be determined by the appellant. Even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that all these candidates, who had been appointed, were from the same panel. There are no criteria available to determine the inter se merit of the candidates. These respondents were appointed several years after the appointments were made in the year 1985. None of the candidates who had been selected in the year 1985 were made parties to the O.A. before the C.A.T. or before the High Court in the writ petition. In the circumstances, the seniority of the candidates who had been appointed in the year 1985 cannot be disturbed without hearing those candidates. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strongly relied on the letter dated 17.2.1986 written by the Addl. Executive Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment Board to the effect that if any candidate, who had subsequently been appointed, his/her seniority would be determined on the basis of his/her aggregate marks or the rank secured in the interview. The letter dated 17.2.1986 cannot be considered as an order passed on behalf of the railways. Moreover, the seniority of persons appointed in a service should be decided after hearing the relevant parties and applying the rules regulating the seniority principle. In these cases there was no common seniority list and marks secured by these candidates and the candidates who had been appointed in the year 1985 are not available and placed before C.A.T. or High Court. The relative merit of the candidates cannot be considered as no marks are plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
