ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. As the facts and issues arise in these writ petition are similar, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway board) issued a notification on 10.5.99 notifying the 400 vacancies of Constables, which are to be filled up on all India basis in the Railway Protection Special Force (hereinafter referred to as R.P.S.F.) However, subsequently by a notification dt. 23.6.99 the vacancy position was increased to 800. In order to fill up the said posts a selection was to be conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents in constituting the Departmental Selection Committee, which according to the petitioners is not constituted in accordance with the law/statute.
3. On 31.5.2000, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) whereby the approval of Director General, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.) was communicated for nomination of four officers. It was indicated in the said letter that one Sh.G.M. Ishwar Rao had been nominated against the O.B.C. category, whose case would be verified and in case he does not belong to O.B.C. category, the committee would co-opt one O.B.C. officer in the recruitment committee. On 3.6.2000, another letter was issued intimating that Sh. G.M.Ishwar Rao does not belong to O.B.C. category and that one Sh. Arul Jyoti, Assistant Security Commissioner, who belongs to O.B.C. category be co-opted as a member of the Recruitment Board. The petitioners in the present writ petition seek for quashing of the notification dt. 31.5.2000 on the ground that constitution of the Departmental Selection Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 49.2 of the Railway Protection Special Force, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987).
4. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is required to extract below the relevant provisions of Rule 49 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987:-
“49.2 Direct recruitment to the posts of Constables shall be made by a departmental committee of three Security Commissioners nominated by the Chief Security Commissioner of the Zonal Railway or Railway Protection Special Force, as the case may be.
49.3 Places for holding selections shall be so fixed as to attract best talent from various regions and need not be restricted merely to the applicants sponsored by the employment exchanges or other such government agencies.”
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on the basis of their submissions, the following issues arise for my consideration:-
1. Whether the nomination of the Officers to the recruitment committee/Departmental Selection Committee is in accordance with law?
2. Whether Standing Order No.59 superseded all earlier instructions issued on the subject including those issued by the Railway Board as a policy decision?
3. Whether the respondents have violated the policy of the Government by not distributing the vacancies Statewise/regionwise for the recruitment of Constables and thereby malafidely intended to transfer vacancies from one State to another?
6. So far the first issue is concerned, it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Recruitment Committee must mandatorily consist of three Security Commissioners of equal rank and status and neither the Senior Commandant of higher rank and status nor Assistant Security Commissioner of lower rank and status can be nominated as members of the Recruitment Committee and that the said Recruitment Committee cannot consist of more than three members of equal rank and status, namely the Security Commissioner. IT was also submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the statutory Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 cannot be over-turned by the Executive Orders of the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board.
7. The Standing Order 59 issued on 19.2.99 by the Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Government of India, provides the procedure to be followed for the purpose of recruitment of Constables in the Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force. Paragraph-V thereof provides that while the process of scrutiny of the applications is in progress, the Chief Security Commissioner shall nominate a committee consisting of four Divisional Security Commissioners, giving representation to SC, OBC and minority categories and that the seniormost Divisional Security Commissioner shall be the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee and if any member has to be taken from outside his Railway, it shall be done with the consent of the Chief Security Commissioners concerned and the approval of the Director General, R.P.F. In paragraph-II of the said Standing Order 59 it was provided that in order to have representation from all the states and all parts of the states, it is essential to publish the vacancies State/UT-wise and centre-wise and that the CSC/RPSF would indicate while sending the proposal for recruitment, the exact number of candidates to be recruited from each state. The aforesaid standing order was issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force. However, on 22.3.99 a fresh memorandum was issued by the Inspector General, R.P.F. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) on the subject of recruitment of Constables in R.P.F./R.P.S.F. by making reference to the Standing Order No.59. It was clarified in the said memorandum that a decision had been taken that the recruitment of Constables in R.P.S.F. would be ordered by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F.
8. Reference is also required to be made to another memorandum dt. 30.11.98, which relates to composition of committees for interviews on R.R.Bs. for recruitment of Group ‘C’ posts. It was mentioned in the said memorandum that in view of difficulty in identifying Junior Administration grade OBC officers for nomination on Interview Committees of RRBs, the Board had decided that there would be not bar to nomination of Senior Scale officers but the following priority has to be followed:-
i. Serving Junior Administration Grade officers should be nominated by CPO.
ii. In case of serving Railway Officers not being available, other Central Govt./State Govt./PSU/Bank Officers belonging to OBC category may be nominated by the Chairman, if available, as per existing rules.
iii. In case of non-availability of officers as mentioned in (i) & (ii) above, Sr. Scale serving Railway Officers of OBC category may be nominated, while ensuring that the officer so nominated is not subordinate to any other officer on the Interview Panel.
9. In the context of the background facts, let me now discuss the issues raised before me. It was submitted that Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 prescribes the mode and manner for recruitment to the posts of Constables and in terms of said statutory Rules the Recruitment Committee must consist of three Security Commissioners of equal rank and status and that in violation of the said statutory Rule 49.2 the Director General, R.P.F. nominated and approved, on 29.5.2000, four members to the Recruitment Committee at Chitranjan and Delhi. It was submitted that one of the said officers was a Senior Commandant whereas two other officers were of the rank of Divisional Security Commissioners and the other one was a Assistant Security Commissioner, which does not satisfies the recruitment rules as laid down under the provisions of Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987. The Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. constituted the Recruitment Committee consisting of the following officers to conduct the recruitment of Constables in R.P.S.F:-
1. Sh.C.S.Ray, Senior Commandant No.3, Chairman Bn/RPSF/Lucknow.
2. Sh. D. Kohli, Divisional Security Commissioner, Bangalore, Southern Railway.
3. Sh. S.K. Sinha, Divisional Security Commissioner, Asansol, Eastern Railway.
4. Sh. G.M.Ishwar Rao, Divisional Security Commissioner, Vijaywada, South Central Railway.
10. Since Sh. G.M.Ishwar Raw was not found to be belonging to OBC category, accordingly the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. nominated Sh. Arul Jyoti as one of the members of the Recruitment Committee. Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 stipulates that direct recruitment to the posts of Constables shall be made by a departmental committee of three Security Commissioners nominated by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. The posts of Senior Commandant and Divisional Security Commissioner are higher in office than the Security Commissioners. The stand of the respondents herein in respect of the matter of nomination of persons to the Departmental Selection Committee is that since subsequent to the aforesaid Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987, the Director General, R.P.F. had issued the Standing Order No.59 in regard to the recruitment of Constables in R.P.S.F. in supersession of all previous instructions, the mandate of the said circular was also required to be complied with. More so, when the Government extended reservation to the OBC category in all recruitment, after coming into force of R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987, it was contended that in view of the aforesaid composition, the Committee was also required to include one member belonging to OBC category as per Ministry of Railways policy instructions dt. 18.7.96, which provides that nomination should be made of four members, three of whom should be non-official members one each belonging to SC/ST communities, Minority communities and Other Backward Classes.
11. Two of the officers in the committee nominated by the respondents are of the rank of Divisional Security Commissioner, whereas one of the officers is a Senior Commandant. As per Item-10 of Schedule-I attached to R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987, the Senior Commandant when posted as Head of the Security Division is designated as Divisional Security Commissioner. Further, as per Item-11 of Schedule-I attached to R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 the Senior Commandant is also designated as Senior Security Commissioner. Column-6 of Schedule-II & III of R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 provides that Senior Security Commissioner, Security Commissioner and Divisional Security Commissioner enjoy the same administrative and disciplinary powers. Thus, the aforesaid four officers in the Recruitment Committee were of the rank of Divisional Security Commissioner as per the provisions of Standing Order 59 dt. 19.2.99. Since, there was a doubt raised at the time of constituting the aforesaid recruitment committee by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. about Sh.G.M.Ishwar Rao not being of OBC category, the committee was authorised to co-opt one OBC member in the committee. However, upon verification, it was found subsequently that Sh. G.M.Ishwar Rao does not belong to OBC category and, therefore, the Chairman of the Recruitment Committee suggested the name of Sh.Arul Jyoti, Assistant Security Commissioner, who was nominated by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. as fourth member on the analogy that in case of non-availability of Junior Administration grade OBC officers for nomination on Interview Committees of RRBs, Senior Scale serving Railway Officers of OBC may be nominated, while ensuring that the officer so nominated is not subordinate to any other officer on the Interview Panel, in terms of the letter of Ministry of Railways dt. 30.11.98. It is thus established that the aforesaid committee constituted by the respondents substantially complies with the statutory requirement of the provisions of Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 read wit the provisions of Standing Order No.59 and also the instructions of the Ministry of Railways. In my considered opinion, the Standing Order No.59 and the Ministry of Railways’ memorandums dt.18.7.96 and 27.4.98 supplement the statutory Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 and they are not in conflict or contradict the aforesaid Rules. A harmonious interpretation of the aforesaid statutory Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 along with the provisions of the Standing Order No.59 and the memorandums dt.18.7.96 and 27.4.98, would make it crystal clear that they could be read together as supplementing each other and on such a harmonious interpretation it is established that the respondents did not commit any infraction of Rule 49.2 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 while constituting the Departmental Selection Committee.
12. So far the second issue, as to whether Standing Order No.59 supersedes all earlier instructions on the subject including those by the Railway Board, is concerned, it is to be noticed that the Ministry of Railways can take policy decision for implementation in railways and these policy decisions are issued for implementation in all department/disciplines of Zonal Railways including Security. The letter dt. 30.11.98, which was issued by the Ministry of Railways, could not have been superseded by the directions issued on 19.2.99 as the same was issued by the Director General in terms of Rule 22 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987. The said letter dt.30.11.98 was issued by the Ministry of Railways for composition of committees for Interviews on RRBs for recruitment of Group-C posts and also for nomination of OBC officers on the Interview Committees and, therefore, the same stands and could not be deemed to have been superseded by the notification/direction issued on 19.2.99 by the Director General.
13. Rule 22 of the R.P.S.F. Rules, 1987 provides that the command, supervision and administration of the force at union level shall vest in Director General and, therefore, such instructions issued by the Director General for their implementation in Railway Protection Force cannot supersede the policy decisions issued by the Ministry of Railways.
14. With the aforesaid conclusions, I am left to decide the last issue raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner raising the contention that the vacancies have not been worked out Statewise or regionwise. The Standing Order No.59 was issued in the month of February, 1999, which provides that vacancies have to be worked out Statewise/regionwise. However, subsequent thereto a fresh notification was issued on 22.3.99 to which reference has already been made and which stated that recruitment in R.P.S.F. is to be ordered directly by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. The R.P.S.F. is directly under the administrative control of Railway Board and the Chief Security Commissioner is headquartered at Railway Board. As per the Standing Order No.59, initially recruitment in R.P.S.F. were also to be conducted by the Zonal, R.P.F. for which Statewise calculation of vacancies was required. The said Standing Order to that extent was modified by the subsequent notification dt. 22.3.99 specifying therein that recruitment of Constables in R.P.S.F. would be ordered by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.S.F. and not by the Chief Security Commissioners of Zonal R.P.S.F.
15. In this Connection, reference may also be made to the policy instruction of the Ministry of Railways dt. 26.5.99, which lays down the policy regarding reservation of vacancies amongst different categories, which are to be kept for direct recruitment to Group-C and Group-D posts. According to the said policy decision the said posts are to be filled up by open competition and on all India basis. In the present case, recruitment in R.P.S.F. was ordered to be made by the Railway Board and as such reservation of vacancies amongst various categories was kept on all India basis and not on State or regionsise.
16. It is also to be noticed that one of the petitioners, namely, Sh.Neeraj Chahar appeared before the Recruitment Committee on 13.10.2000 for the physical measurement test and again appeared for the written test on 21.10.2000 at Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala. The said petitioner was also called for viva interview but he failed to appear before the recruitment committee for interview. So far the other two petitioners, namely, Sh.Dinesh Kumar and Sh. Manoj Kumar are concerned, they had appeared but have failed in the physical measurement test, so they could not appear in the written test at all. Out of three of the petitioners, two have appeared in the selection test but failed to qualify int he physical measurement, whereas the other petitioner although appeared int he two tests, namely, the written test and physical measurement test, but did not appear in the interview.
17. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the conclusions arrived at hereinabove, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed.