K. Prabhakara Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9877/1995
Petitioner: K. Prabhakara Rao
Respondent: U.O.I. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9877/1995
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE & S.N.VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 04, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Railway Establishment Manual
Paragraph 205 – Post of Assistant Personnel Officer – Written test qualified but marks in interview not upto minimum percentage – Tribunal at Ernakulam holding fixation of minimum percentage as unsustainable – SLPs against those orders dismissed – Present incumbent, however, unsuccessful as Madras Tribunal not following Ernakulam Bench. Held that the appellant, being similarly placed and decision of Ernakulam Bench having been upheld, cannot be denied relief. Administration directed to consider the case as if there are no minimum percentage of marks in viva-voce. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Madras. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer under the Railway Administra-tion. He qualified in the written test, and was called for inter-view, but as he could not secure the minimum percentage of marks required in the viva-voce test, as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, he was not given the ap-pointment. Two other persons, who had also applied for the same post along with the appellant, being unsuccessful in getting into the service, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal followed the earlier judgment of the said Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989 and al-lowed the O.As. In O.A. 389/1989, the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench came to the conclusion that the fixation of minimum percentage of marks for viva-voce test under paragraph 205 of the Indian Rail-way Establishment Manual cannot be sustained in law, and accord-ingly the same is illegal. Against the said judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989, the Union of India had approached this Court in Special Leave Petition, but that stood dismissed. The two other persons similarly placed as the appellant having approached the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench, the same was registered as O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991. Both these applications were allowed by order dated 13th April, 1992 and the Tribunal followed the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 30th April, 1992 the Railway Administration had approached this Court in Special Leave Petition, which appears to have been dismissed by this Court on merits, but notwithstanding the same, the Madras Bench of the Tribunal not having followed the said decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, and having dismissed the O.A., this appeal has been preferred.
2. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the fixation of the minimum percentage of marks in the viva-voce test as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual can be held to be in accordance with law or not. So far as this question is concerned, the two judgments of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal have been upheld by this Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the Union of India. The appellant being similarly situated as the applicant in O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991, and in fact, in the merit list having occupied higher position than them it would not be reasonable to deny the relief to him, which has been given to the applicant in O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal at Madras and direct that the case of the appellant be considered, as if there is no qualifying marks in the viva-voce test, as indicated in paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Chapter 2. The decision of the Railway Administration be communicated to the appellant at an earlier date.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Admin-istrative Tribunal, Madras. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer under the Railway Administra-tion. He qualified in the written test, and was called for inter-view, but as he could not secure the minimum percentage of marks required in the viva-voce test, as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, he was not given the ap-pointment. Two other persons, who had also applied for the same post along with the appellant, being unsuccessful in getting into the service, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal followed the earlier judgment of the said Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989 and al-lowed the O.As. In O.A. 389/1989, the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench came to the conclusion that the fixation of minimum percentage of marks for viva-voce test under paragraph 205 of the Indian Rail-way Establishment Manual cannot be sustained in law, and accord-ingly the same is illegal. Against the said judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989, the Union of India had approached this Court in Special Leave Petition, but that stood dismissed. The two other persons similarly placed as the appellant having approached the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench, the same was registered as O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991. Both these applications were allowed by order dated 13th April, 1992 and the Tribunal followed the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 30th April, 1992 the Railway Administration had approached this Court in Special Leave Petition, which appears to have been dismissed by this Court on merits, but notwithstanding the same, the Madras Bench of the Tribunal not having followed the said decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, and having dismissed the O.A., this appeal has been preferred.
2. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the fixation of the minimum percentage of marks in the viva-voce test as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual can be held to be in accordance with law or not. So far as this question is concerned, the two judgments of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal have been upheld by this Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the Union of India. The appellant being similarly situated as the applicant in O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991, and in fact, in the merit list having occupied higher position than them it would not be reasonable to deny the relief to him, which has been given to the applicant in O.A. 149/1992 and O.A. 837/1991. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal at Madras and direct that the case of the appellant be considered, as if there is no qualifying marks in the viva-voce test, as indicated in paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Chapter 2. The decision of the Railway Administration be communicated to the appellant at an earlier date.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
