1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6213 OF 2008
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.7686 OF 2004)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
CHITRA LEKHA CHAKRABORTY Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A.NO.6214/2008 @ SLP(C)NOS.180603/2005
AND WITH
C.A.NOS.6215-6216/2008 @ SLP(C)NOS.21902-21903/2004
ORDER
Leave granted.
Delay condoned.
We will first deal with Civil Appeals @ SLP) Nos.21902-03/04
and Civil Appeal @ SLP) 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 of these candidates who were aggrieved by their non-
selection filed various representations before the Railway Recruitment Board.
2
While these representations were pending, they filed
3
Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short
`C.A.T.’)at Calcutta. The C.A.T. has directed that their cases be considered
and fresh interviews be held and selection be done and the candidates be
included. Thereafter several candidates were appointed, pursuant to the
direction of the C.A.T.. Prior to this, on 17.2.1986 the Addl. Executive
Director Estt.(T&MPP) wrote a letter to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment
Board indicating the number of candidates to whom the fresh notices have
been issued and it was found that some candidates have secured more marks
than the 1000 candidates, who were suspected to have indulged in
malpractices, and he was of the view that these candidates should be given
careful consideration and on consideration of the same, their rights should be
restored and the names of those candidates which were in the list should be
included in the appropriate places in the panel. Appropriate direction to
appoint the respondents in Civil Appeal @ SLP)Nos.21902-21903/04 and in
the appeal @ SLP(C)No.18603/05 were issued, on the basis of the letter dated
17.2.1986 and the said respondents were appointed in the year 1994. These
respondents had claimed seniority over the candidates who had already been
appointed in the year 1985 based on the statement made 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
4
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 seniority over the candidates who had already been
appointed in the year 1985. But this plea of the respondents was not accepted
by the High Court and the order of the C.A.T. was confirmed by the High
Court. The judgment of the High Court in these two proceedings are
challenged in the present appeals.
We will now deal with Civil Appeal @ SLP) 7686/04. The brief
facts are :
The respondent herein had participated in the selection in the
year 1984 and her name was not found in the selection list and she filed a
representation to the Railway authorities in the year 1991 and her
representation was not replied by the railway authorities whereafter she filed
an Original Application before the C.A.T., Calcutta. The C.A.T. has allowed
the O.A. During the pendency of the O.A. before the Tribunal, the Chairman
of the Railway Recruitment Board issued a direction to appoint the respondent
and she was consequently appointed. Thereafter the O.A. filed by the
respondent was disposed of on 8.1.1996 with the direction that the
Chairman of the Railway Recruitment Board shall, within two months from the
date of communication of the order, convey to the petitioner
5
therein to specify the specific position of the petitioner in the panel selected
for the purpose of determination of her inter se seniority amongst those
appointed from the said panel and it was also directed that the relative
position of the petitioner of such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view her
aggregate marks and the relative 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 for extending the period of limitation prescribed under
Rule 17 of the 1987 Rules. Learned Addl.Sol.General has placed reliance on a
decision of this Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal
Secretary, Irrigation Dept. & Ors., reported in 2008(7) SCC p.169, wherein it
was held that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to an
application submitted under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. It was further held that as per Section
6
43 of the Arbitration Act, the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the
application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for
setting aside the award. In other words, a specific provision was made in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act for application of Limitation Act. In the
instant case a specific provision in Rule 17 of 1987 Rules has been made for
filing a review application before the C.A.T. and therefore, Section 5 of the
Limitation Act was not applicable to a petition filed under Rule 17. The High
Court was justified in concluding that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the
application filed beyond 30 days.
On coming to the question of seniority of the respondent the
direction of the C.A.T. was that the respondent herein shall be given specific
position in the panel for the purpose of determination of her inter se seniority
against those appointed from the said panel and the relative position of the
respondent in such panel shall be ascribed keeping in view the 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
7
made in the year 1984 and the persons appointed subsequently so that the
seniority could be determined by the appellant. Even though the direction
issued by the Tribunal has become final in view of the peculiar position the
Railways is directed to give seniority to the respondent from the date on
which she joined the service.
The appeal @ SLP(C)No.7686 of 2004 is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
In the other two appeals i.e. Civil Appeals @ SLP) Nos.21902-
03/04 and Civil Appeal @ SLP) no.18603/05, the respondents were
appointed pursuant to the direction passed by the C.A.T. and it was also
directed that their seniority shall be given based on their aggregate marks
over the relative aggregate marks obtained by other candidates who had
already been appointed. Neither the respondents nor the Railways are in a
position to give the aggregate marks obtained by the respondents nor the
marks obtained by the candidates who had already been appointed. There
was no common panel vis a vis the candidates from the year 1985 and the
candidates who had been subsequently appointed. Only if there was a
common panel, the seniority could be determined on the basis of Rule 303
which regulates the seniority of the non-gazetted railway employees. There
was no common seniority list nor any merit list prepared by including all the
candidates. Moreover, the respondents herein were not included in the
original list and the C.A.T. has directed that there should be a fresh interview
for these candidates and the interview was held subsequently. It must
8
have been certainly by a different Board which had conducted the interview.
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 to the
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board wherein he expressed the opinion that
in case the representations filed by these candidates are allowed their places
in the seniority is to be given by interpolating in the seniority list which has
already been made. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this
was not the stand of the Railway Board and once the stand was expressly
made clear, the appellant was bound by this statement. Reliance was also
placed on the observations of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported (1978) 1 SCC p.405,
wherein this Court has stated that when a statutory functionary makes an
order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape
of
9
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional
grounds later brought out and it was contended that these observations of
this Court were further followed in State Govt. Houseless Employees’
Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC p.610 at para 49,
Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003(6) SCC p.545 para
37 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai &
Ors., 2005(7) SCC p.627 paras 24 to 27. But in the instant case there was no
order passed by any responsible officer or by the Railway Recruitment 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 placed
even before us. It may also be noticed that these respondents were
appointed after a period of six years, not due to any fault committed by the
Railway Recruitment Board. As per the
10
allegations and counter allegations, it would appear that some of the
candidates had indulged in malpractices and they were disqualified and later
on on the basis of the representations and the orders passed by the
C.A.T. the respondents were appointed subsequently. There was no
negligence or latches on the part of the appellant in making the appointments
of the respondents belatedly. Having regard to the peculiar facts, the
respondents are entitled to seniority only from the date when they joined
their service.
Accordingly, Civil appeals @ SLP)Nos.21902-03/04 and
SLP)No.18603/05 are allowed to the extent indicated above and the order
passed by the High Court is set aside. No costs.
……………CJI.
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
……………..J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………..J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
NEW DELHI;
21ST OCTOBER, 2008.