IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALo':EEj.VT: ._ DATED THIS THE 231-d DAY OF NOvEMBEI2..A":%oOé:" " PRESENT ._ THE HON'BLE MR. 9.1). DINAKARAII, EHIEFI AN}? _ THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIQ_E'-Y_.G,_SA]§HAHIT WRIT PETITION NIj.S2'37T/.7§2O4j9 }SgCAT) BETWEEN 1 1. THE DIVISIONAL,P'ERS=ONNE~L OFF'I«C~ER__,_i PERSONNEL :3RA;NcH~.SEc; _ _ :1'. I SOUTH wESTE'RN"'RIAILwjgay;'--..__-- BANGALOREV4»-SEQ o23.'--V ~-- 2. THE UNION Or?:1l\IDIA, . REP. BY ITS GENERAL" .M'A.NA_GER, SOUTH WESTERN I-zAII._w'AY;' HUBLI - 589 020. , A . PETITIONERS (BY SR1. DEVADAS, SR; ADV.' A/w SMT. KS. ANASUYA DEVI FOR M / NYAYAMOITRA' ADVOCATES). ANE; ' V SHRI T. ' MIJNISIWATMIY S /O. THEERT-.AN; " .. ;jAr;Ep ABOUT 45 YEARS, I _ EXLCASUAL LABOUR, SALEM DIVN, , 'sOUTH,wESTERE RAILWAY, 0» CHIKKAMPATT1 COLONY, ' 7TM_U"1'HA:MPATTI POST, _ TDEIA-RMAPURI DISTRICT -- 635 301. RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 82;
227′ OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR,_ ‘TI-‘IE
RECORDS IN OA.NO.476/07, ON THE FILE OF ..TH’E.._’CAT;
BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION. ~
MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, BANGALO.RE.jBENC’H.. _
DT. 6.5.09, IN OA.NO.476/O7, VIDEO,’ANN~A’;””‘ae’_’v.D’I~sMISSV ”
OA.NO.476/07, FILED BY THE RESPONI5ENT’ANl3_ . _
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING UP._ FOR ORDERS, I
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE’ FQLLOV’J._ING;~
ORDERF ”
(Delivered byRI_D.D;eI-I’eIRe_§ee’;’IOJ.) D’
This writ petition is by;the’.’:DtiVi.Sio_nal Personnel
Officer, South We.s*;’errI. respondent in
Original App1i_catiOn on the file of the Central
Administratiife (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’)
Bangalo;-is ‘Bench,’-»_B_la:igalore, being aggrieved by the order
‘Tde£eeI.I’ljQe.oS’I2oo9 wherein, the CAT has allowed the
applioatipon eil.granted the prayer of the applicant by
di_reeting–« the ‘respondent No.1-the first appellant herein to
the exercise of absorption of EX.CL’s against the
a§{1ai1’a_ble”Dl79 Group ‘D’ posts in the manner explained in
he has been already asked to attend for screening’j”»o.
on 30/ 12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at
Institute, Bangalore. Further contents’ of_’
Annexure ‘A-5′ would clearly sho_wHthat
of Casual Labourers eligible,’
entered in the live register _ and vltvhel’-namelcf the
applicant has also been Furth__er”,,_the
that applicant had been call_od»v.for__scree*ning
absorption of casual .an’d__’that_his name
has been found in the
by the applica:r1tl_ pp eaniier letters
Annexures.–~’Fa5l5:_to. vzerfi’ cancelled since the
educational:iltgualifilicatiopn hadllbeen prescribed for
absorption, for the purpose of
absorption a_nd”Vvrouid only in case of initial
appcintmentiiip * it
V Thelllbmaterial on record would clearly
‘ show »t_ha.te.there is no merit in the contention of
the applicants were called for
screen_ing_Vi’only for the purpose of preparing fresh
live re_gi”ster as the intimation would fairly show
VA iasikreferred to above that the name of the
‘applicant had already been entered in the live
= …–register and he had been called for absorption of
casual labourers. The only ground upon which
3,»: \
. A K
the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of
the applicant for absorption is age limit. -1-
clear from the Railway Board Master .4
No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as iioll’ow_s’:,–
“At the time of scree’ri*tirtg’.A_Aoficasual.’_ _
labour relaxation in’ page should
automatic if it is €St(1′.bti:8’h€d “t1′;at_V
individual was within the prescribed age
limit and had been more’ oifless reguiarlyvvi
working. In oldlfcas-‘es,, .wh_er_e”«the age
limit was not observed,.felaxat.ion of age
should be considered’._syn’tpathe,t–ically.
The by cpos, DR1s the Chief
Engineers }i{L’_on..stru1:_tiion)’_ are” competent to
grarittiitlievreiagftationy Va’ge””.,: ‘
12. .The..faet that. Cefos, ‘Detox/is and the Chief
Engineers competent to grant
relaxation ‘made is:’i1.ot”—diisiputed by the petitioner.
Further, haviyngeeregardiwto the fact that the case of
thei”ap_p:licant before-“the Tribunal is for absorption
‘ Land’ 1i.ot’~for_lini_tia1 appointment. What is required
is as to whether the appointment
of”-..cas_ual;Alabour was within the prescribed age
limit” when initially recruited as a casual labour
Aiandgthe fact that when the petitioner was initially
i’7eng”agec1 as a casual labour, he was within the age
at …~iimit was not disputed as the date of birth of the
applicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is
l Irititexzléfes/No
to the above said material on record, we are’:”‘–.T
satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal
justified and does not suffer from any :”
illegality as to call for interferenee in
the writ jurisdiction of this Court ah;-ie,¢hpraihlgi3;,s
We hold that the writ petition V
and pass the fo1loWing:– it _ A”
…\W° R
The writ petition–_ is ajcii slfriijs sxed’. ”
4. Hence, £911.-hm-.hg §.t_A_}1e{fl”1tliridi1’1A¥§”ili1ft31T1_C._1__t§f’:t’elci by us in Writ
Petition No.29′;’74(l’)l7:fi.2>:(5′(‘)ll9l–. ,{Clisp’6stetZ– -gm 18–11–2009), as
referred supra, .vtfrit_:””pe’tition is also liable to be
dismissed. Ac:lCQ4rdi.ngly, it:_i”s.§liismissed. N0 order as to costs.
0’)
£2»
/.
Wei:-…£-East: Yes/No
Sf5b/