IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R 1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 10131/2005 (Anil Kumar Soni & Others Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal & Others) 2. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3695/2004 (Anil Kumar Sharma & Others Versus The Union of India & Others) 3. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2007/2005 (Prakash Chand Saini Versus Union of India & Another) 4. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4007/2005 (Vishnu Shankar Sharma & Another Versus Union of India & Others) 5. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7129/2007 (Mahesh Kumar Bunkar Versus The Union of India & Others) 6. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2627/2008 (Amit Sharma Versus The Union of India & Others) Date of Order :: 24th February,2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Mahendra Goyal )counsel for the Mr. Piyush Pani Mathur) petitioners Mr. S.S. Hasan ) Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma) counsel for Mr. P.C. Sharma )the respondents
PER HON’BLE BHAGWATI, J.
Since all the aforesaid writ petitions relate to identical questions of law and facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. All the petitioners submitted representations for issuing appointment letters to the post of Ticket collector, but the General Manager, Western Railway, rejected the same. Dissatisfied with the rejection orders, the petitioners filed OAs in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the same were dismissed, both on merits as also on the point of limitation.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, all the aforesaid petitioners have craved indulgence of this Court by way of writ petitions wherein prayer has been made to quash and set-aside the orders dated 12.8.2003 passed in OA No. 467/2001 and 214/2002; order dated 28.1.2004 passed in OA No. 364/2002 and other orders dated 22.4.2004 passed in OA No. 355/2002; order dated 26.4.2004 passed in OA No. 33/2003 and order dated 7.1.2005 passed in OA No. 393/2001.
4. Skipping unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to these writ petitions , in nub, are stated thus:
Pursuant to the advertisement issued for the post of Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector, Accounts clerk, Junior Clerk, which appeared in the employment notice No. 1/96 dated 17.3.96 (Ann.A1), the applicants submitted their applications. In these category of posts, appointments were to be given on the basis of merit-cum-preference. The respondent no.2 issued call letters whereby the applicants were called for joint competitive examination to be held on 21.7.96. The applicants were declared successful in the written examination as well as interview and vide letter dated 22.7.97 they were informed that their applications for appointment has been sent to the General Manager (Establishment), Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai with the recommendation for appointment (Ann.A2). Thereafter the applicants submitted many representations for issuing appointment letters to the post of Ticket Collector, but all in vain.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
6. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) canvassed that the learned Tribunal dismissed the OAs on the ground that the period of select panel had expired on 2nd June, 1998, but the fact is that the respondents had given appointments to many candidates from the select list in the years 1999 and 2000 after the expiry of the period of select panel. Thus, the observation made by the learned Tribunal was totally misconceived. Learned counsel further canvassed that the second ground of dismissal of OAs was that the applications were filed after the period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as such the applications being not maintainable could not be admitted.
7. Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that even after the expiry of the period of panel, the appointments were made by respondent no.3 or respondent no.2, as the case may be, from the panel in the years 1999, 2000 and 2002. The applications were well within limitation and they ought to have been entertained by the learned Tribunal.
8. Citing a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma and Others Versus Chairman, School Service Commission reported in (2001) 4 Supreme court Cases 289, the learned counsel submitted that in this case the life of panel for general category was extended but the same was not extended in the case of panel for OBC. The Hon’ble Apex Court held the action of the respondents to be unjustified, illegal and directed them to give regular appointment from the select list. The facts of the case at hand are quite akin to the facts of the cited case. Hence, even if the application was not filed within a period of limitation, the application ought to have been allowed. The learned Counsel has cited two more judgments of this Court in the case of: (one) Rajeev Tiwari Versus State of Rajasthan & Others reported in RLW 2008 (3) Raj 2334; and (two) Shaitan Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Another reported in RLW 2003 (4) Raj 2538, wherein the facts of the cases were similar to that of the cases at hand. In these cases also, the learned Single Judge declined to give relief as the vacancies had been filled, but the Division Bench of this Court held that the courts were not sitting to do injustice to litigants or to deny their just and reasonable claim on the technical grounds and further directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to be made on the advertised posts.
9. E Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners could not be considered as there was no vacancy in Ratlam, Ajmer and Kota Divisions and the person who were offered appointment to the post of Ticket Collector were senior to them and no junior to the petitioners was ever considered. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal having considered the factual aspects of the matter in right perspective, recorded the observations in detail and rightly dismissed the OAs. The impugned orders are just and proper, which warrant no intervention and thus, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
10. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned orders on record, it is noticed that the petitioners were served with a letter dated 22nd July, 1997 by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer informing that they had been found suitable for appointment and their cases had been sent to the General Manager (Establishment), Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai and any future correspondence on that behalf might be done to the General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai. It is also noticed that earlier also the petitioners filed OAs but the same were dismissed with the direction that the petitioners should first file representations before the competent authority. The petitioners submitted the representations, but they were dismissed by the respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be. It is also gathered that the period of panel which was prepared by the respondents expired on 2nd June, 1998.
11. It is very relevant to record that the respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be, rejected the representations by way of passing a detailed and speaking order stating that initially the requisition was placed before the Railway Recruitment Board for 47 vacancies in the year 1995 and the retirement age of railway employees at that time was 58 years, but on account of raising superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years in May, 1998, no retirement took place and no vacancy occurred. Resultantly, the petitioners could not be appointed. Meantime, on account of economy measures, the Board also had restricted the intake of staff in the railway services, resultantly intake from the Railway Recruitment Board was also reduced.
12. The respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be, is found to have unequivocally stated in reply affidavit before the learned Tribunal that no junior to the petitioners was ever given appointment as Ticket Collector nor any appointment was made from outside on merit. Albeit, the petitioners have stated in the writ petitions that the candidates junior to them were given appointment from the same panel in the year 1999, 2000 and 2002 and their representations were wrongly dismissed by the respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be, but not even a shred of evidence has been filed on record in support thereof. The respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2 is found to have rightly rejected the representations of the petitioners and further the learned Tribunal is also found to have justly dismissed the aforesaid OAs.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in umpteen cases that the selected candidates do not have any right to be appointed to the post, for which the selection was made. Tangibly no person junior to the petitioners could be given appointment. The right of the petitioners to get appointment could arise only when a person lower in merit was given appointment. Simply because the names of the applicants petitioners appeared in the panel of selected candidates, it did not give a right of appointment to them. The legal position in this regard has been propounded in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Of course, they have a right to be considered for appointment and the appointing authority cannot ignore the select list or decline to make the appointment on their whims. The select list or the panel cannot be ignored arbitrarily, but the facts of the instant case are altogether distinct.
14. The fact situation emerging in these cases is that initially the requisition was placed before the Railway Recruitment Board for 47 vacancies of Ticket Collector in the year 1995 when the superannuation age of government employees was 58 years. After completion of the selection process, Government of India raised the superannuation age fro 58 years to 60 years in May, 1998 resulting into no vacancy for another two years. Since after completion of selection process for the notified posts, no vacancy occurred on account of increase in the superannuation age and restriction of intake of the staff due to economy measures observed by the Board, no appointment was made on the notified posts from the panel. The respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be, rightly rejected the representations of the petitioners. Similarly, the learned Tribunal also having considered all the factors and appreciated them in detail, rightly dismissed the OAs. It is emerged from the material on record that no junior to the petitioners was ever appointed from the panel by respondent no.3 or the respondent no.2, as the case may be, nor any person from outside on merit was appointed. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that many juniors to the petitioners were appointed in the year 1999, 2000 and 2002 after the expiry of the period of panel is found to be untenable and devoid of force. Same argument was advanced before the learned Tribunal also and the learned Tribunal too having considered it dismissed the same out-rightly.
15. The judgments which have been cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not have any bearing on the cases at hand as the fact situation of all these are galore and distinct.
16. The learned Tribunal also observed that the petitioners approached the Tribunal after the period of limitation provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and thus, their applications could not have been admitted. Placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Versus Chandra Shekhar Mishra reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 878, the learned Tribunal held that these writ petitions were squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the OAs could be dismissed on the sole ground of limitation. In the case of Vinodan T. and Others Versus University of Calicat and others also reported in 2002 (2) Supreme Court SLJ 98, the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded the same ratio. Albeit, the learned counsel has cited the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma Versus Chairman, School Service commission (supra) to get protection of the period of limitation, but to our utter surprise, the judgment does not render any assistance to the petitioners. It is nowhere mentioned in the said judgment that even after the period of limitation as provided under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 the OAs can be filed before the Tribunal. The provisions with regard to period of limitation as provided under section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 are the statutory provisions and the courts are required to adhere to these provisions in letter and spirit. The Tribunal considered this aspect also in right perspective and the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on this score seems to be upright and reasonable. The impugned orders rendered by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal are found to be just and proper, based on cogent reasoning and suffer from no infirmity. We are in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal and the impugned orders, to our view, warrant no intervention.
17. For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid six writ petitions being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed and the same stand dismissed accordingly.
18. There shall be no order as to cost.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (K.S. RATHORE),J. DK/-