ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicant impugns respondents orders dated 10.8.2004 and 16.11.2005, whereby his name for the post of Chief Goods Supervisor has been deleted from the panel. Also assailed is interpolation of seniority and consequent reversion.
2. Applicant was promoted on selection as a Goods Supervisor on 14.12.1998, whereas Shri Shashi Kumar, respondent No. 3 (R-3), who was a Goods Driver, was declared unfit as Driver and was deployed on alternate job of Goods Supervisor in June 2001. On impart of training he joined as Head Goods Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on 16.7.2001/26.9.2001, whereas Shri Bijender Singh, respondent No. 4 (R-4) was promoted in the grade of Rs. 5000-8000 on 1.1.1994, giving him the benefit of reservation. He was also promoted in the grade of Rs. 5500-9000 on 14.12.1998 under reservation, whereas Shri Harnam Singh, respondent No. 5 (R-5) was selected as Commercial Inspector and was transferred to the seniority unit. On 1.11.2003 restructuring orders have been passed to enhance promotional avenues in the higher grade. On one time measure a selection was conducted in the grade of Chief Goods Supervisor and a select list was issued where the name of applicant was included, but subsequently on 18.4.2005 his name was deleted, for which a representation when not answered, gives rise to the present OA.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for applicant contends that the impugned orders are not tenable in law because applicant when duly selected in the restructuring in September 2004 on the post of Chief Goods Supervisor having worked for such a long period, interpolation of R-3 in the seniority list has relegated his position without giving him an opportunity.
4. Learned Counsel would contend that R-4 has been given the benefit of promotion in restructuring, which is not permissible in law.
5. Learned Counsel would further contend that the name of R-5 shown to be occupying the post of Chief Goods Supervisor has been wrongly shown as he has severed his lien with the Goods Staff Cadre way back in 1990 and acquired a lien in the cadre of Commercial Inspectors.
6. Learned Counsel would next contend that objection of applicants contained in his representation dated 11.5.2005 have not been considered and the impugned orders passed are non-speaking, without dealing with his contentions.
7. Lastly, learned Counsel would contend that applicant has been discriminated in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, states that in OA-313/2006 Mam Chand Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 2.2.2007, another person whose name was deleted from the panel, namely, Mam Chand Gautam has also assailed respondents’ order dated 16.11.2005 and in this order it is clearly ruled that seniority given on alternate accommodation of R-3 has been correctly assigned.
9. Insofar as R-4 is concerned, it is stated that though no promotion on account of reservation has been given to him in the restructuring, yet insofar as seniority is concerned, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Veerpal Singh Chauhan and Ors. 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 he had been given seniority being senior in the feeder cadre of Goods Supervisor. Accordingly, in case of R-5, who had already been stated to be promoted as Chief Goods Supervisor the vacancy of Chief Goods Supervisor became available on 8.8.1990 and physically w.e.f. 19.7.2005 the claim of Shri Mam Chand Gautam was considered and as there was no vacancy prior to the restructuring, the subsequent vacancies, which are numbering four, have been utilized for a selection notified, in which applicant would be given an opportunity to participate, but his right to be in the panel when others have taken a march over him due to correction of their seniority has no legal and valid right and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
10. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the present OA have already been adjudicated and well taken by the Tribunal by rejecting the claim of applicant in OA-313/2006 (supra).
11. In case of R-5, as it is ruled that there was only one vacancy in the year 1991, which remained vacant actually till 19.7.2005, the same was utilized for Shri Mam Chand to utilized his name in the panel. However, we do not find on record any vacancy erstwhile to the restructuring available to similarly accommodate applicant. The vacancies now shown of Shri G.P.N. Bhargava, Shri Prabhat Kumar Jain and Shri Sadanand had arisen post restructuring, i.e., on 30.9.2004, 31.3.2005 and 31.7.2005, could not have been utilized on restructuring and these posts have been notified in a fresh selection process, in which we do not find any legal infirmity, as per the recruitment rules.
12. Adoption of reservation in restructuring does not arise, as what has been given to R-3 is his seniority as an implication of the decision of the Apex Court in Veerpal Singh Chauhan (supra) and not as a precedent in the matter of promotion by way of reservation.
13. Having failed to establish that any vacancy other than R-5 on which Mam Chand Gautam had preferential claim having arisen in the past, deletion of name of applicant from the panel is implication of law, which cannot be found fault with.
14. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA stands dismissed, as bereft of merit. No costs.