Umesh Dutt Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner in the instant case has assailed the order dated 24th November, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the O.A.No.2995/2010 as well as the order dated 27th February, 2012 whereby the Review Application No.59/2012 was rejected.

2. The petitioner has assailed his non-selection for the post of JE-II (25% LDCE Quota) notified by the respondent on 7th January, 2010. The petitioner had undertaken the written examination on 15th June, 2014:DHC:91-DB

2010. He was not found meritorious in the result declared on 13th July,

2010. The respondents however favourably considered the petitioner’s representation dated 19th July, 2010 and corrected the select list by a letter dated 21st July, 2010 whereby the petitioner’s name was included in the list of candidates who had qualified the written examination. The respondents declared that inclusion did not tantamount as a selection. In the final select list issued on 27st July, 2010, three persons, other than the petitioner, were declared successful.

3. This select list was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal by O.A.No.2955/2010 on the sole ground that he possessed a Diploma in Rail Transport and Management had as well as Diploma in Electrical Engineering (having cleared it in the first class), as additional qualifications. Based on these certificates, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to get additional 20 marks under the heading “Personality Address, Leadership and Academic/Technical Qualifications” in terms of the circular being RBE No.55/86. The petitioner placed reliance on the following extract of RBE No.55/86: “The question of granting weightage to the Diploma secured by the Railway Employees from the Institute of Rail Transport in the matter of selections held for promotion to selection post in the Group C has been under consideration of the Board for some time. In terms of extant rules, selection of a Railway servant for promotion to the posts classified as selection depends on the marks secured by him under various heads one of which is Personality, Address, Leadership and Academic/Technical qualification” for which 20% marks have been allotted. It has now been decided that in respect of selections for promotion to Selection posts, Diploma of Institute of Rail Transport will be taken into account, along with any other Technical/Academic qualifications in awarding marks under the heading “Personality, Address, leadership and Academic/Technical Qualifications”.

4. The respondents countered the petitioner’s claim pointing out that after the recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission, merger of grades was effected and there was revised classification and mode of filling up of non-gazetted posts. It was pointed out that the post of JE-II was covered under Sl.No.18 for filling up vacancies as existed on 31st August,

2009. The procedure for holding selection to the post classified as “Selection”. Pursuant to the Railway Board’s letter dated 22nd March, 2006, the heading “Personality Address, leadership and Academic/Technical Qualifications” stands deleted. The directive dated 22nd March, 2006 reads as follows: “The matter has been carefully considered by the Ministry of Railways. It has been decided to altogether do away with the heading “Personality Address, Leadership and Academic/Technical Qualifications” from the selection procedure.”

5. The scheme of selection followed by the respondents declared that 50 marks are awarded for professional ability and 30 for service record. The respondents have submitted that the selection was conducted as per rules mentioned in notification dated 7th January, 2010.

6. In view of the above directions, the petitioner was not entitled to any additional benefit based on the dimplomas as additional qualifications which he claims. The petitioner did not press any other ground before the Tribunal. These are reasons which have weighed with the Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner’s claim by way of the impugned order dated 24th November, 2011.

7. The rejection of review application by the order dated 27th February, 2012 was based on the above directives contained in the Railway Board’s letter dated 22nd March, 2006. This was the only point which was pressed in support of the application.

8. In view of the above, the petitioner was not entitled to any additional benefit based on the qualifications which he claimed. The action of the respondents or the impugned orders dated 24th November, 2011 as well as the order dated 27th February, 2012 therefore cannot be faulted on any legally tenable ground.

9. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition in the year 2012 assailing the orders dated 24th November, 2011 and 27th February, 2012. The petitioner has concealed the factum of filing of the previous writ petition as well as its fate in the present writ petition.

10. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition and application. The writ petition and the application are hereby dismissed. GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J JANUARY 06, 2014 rb