Union of India v. Ramdev & Ors.

1. As the learned counsel for the respondents has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged. CM APPL. 45095/2025 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 10939/2025 CM APPL. 45108/2025 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 10945/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 10939/2025 & CM APPL. 45094/2025 W.P.(C) 10945/2025 & CM APPL. 45107/2025

3. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Orders dated 05.11.2024 and 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 558/2024, titled Ram Dev & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., and O.A. No. 3494/2016, titled Santosh Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., respectively, whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A.s filed by the respondents herein, with the following directions:

4. Briefly stated, the controversy involved in the present petitions is that the petitioners had issued a Notification dated 19.02.2016 for filling up 105 posts of Chief Loco Inspector. The qualification required for applying for the said post was, inter alia, that the Loco Pilots should have an experience of actual driving of 75,000 kms. in the posts of Loco Pilot Mail, Loco Pilot Passenger, and Loco Pilot Goods as on 19.02.2016, that is, the date when the Notification was issued.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents did not possess the requisite experience as on the date of the Notification of the vacancies.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had placed reliance on an Office Circular bearing No. E(P&A)II-2007/RS-14 dated 26.03.2009, wherein the relaxation was granted only to the running staff posted as Power/Crew Controllers, and therefore, it was not applicable to the respondents, as they were not working at the said post.

7. In the present case, the respondents had earlier approached the learned Tribunal by way of O.A.(s), challenging their nonconsideration for the post. The said O.A.(s) were allowed by the learned Tribunal, vide its Order dated 21.03.2023, with the following directions:

footplate experience, have also now completed the said requirement, hence, they shall also be considered on their being found successful in the selection to the post of Loco Inspector in the Pay Band II plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/on the day of completion of footplate experience of 75,000 kms. Those applicants who are not successful in the selection process, permitted in terms of the interim order granted by this Tribunal, shall not, be considered for their eligibility. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

8. From the above, it would be apparent that the learned Tribunal had directed the petitioners to consider even the experience gained by the respondents during the pendency of the said O.A.s, and, in case they had completed the required 75,000 kms. of footplate experience, they were also to be considered, if found successful in the selection process. This Order of the learned Tribunal has gained finality and has not been challenged by the petitioners.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction of the learned Tribunal was only to consider the cases of the candidates who were ‘otherwise qualified’ for the post. He submits that due consideration was given by the petitioners, and that 16 of the persons who had approached the learned Tribunal were appointed as Chief Loco Inspector, whereas the respondents herein were not so appointed as they were not eligible and did not possess the requisite qualification.

10. We are afraid we cannot accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

11. The only ground for rejecting the candidature of the respondents was that the respondents did not possess the 75,000 kms. of footplate experience as on the date of the Notification of the vacancies.

12. The learned Tribunal, in its Order dated 21.03.2023, has directed that the respondents, who may not have completed the required experience as on the date of the Notification but had later acquired the said experience, would also be considered by the petitioners. As noted hereinabove, the said Order gained finality, as it has not been challenged.