- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pritpal Singh v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant joined the Indian Railways as a casual labourer in 1978 and was granted temporary status in 1983. He served in the “open line” on a Group ‘D’ post until 1991, when he was deputed to a construction project as a Material Checking Clerk (a Group ‘C’ post with higher pay). He worked on that higher post for approximately six years.
Seeking regularisation on the Group ‘C’ post, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. By order dated 21-3-2002, the CAT declined regularisation but granted pay protection upon his repatriation to the open line. The Delhi High Court, in a common judgment involving similarly situated employees, affirmed the CAT’s decision.
The appellant then preferred the present Special Leave Petition. During these proceedings, he asserted that in 1996 he had participated in a regular selection for the post of clerk in the open line, cleared the written examination, but was declared unsuccessful because of low interview marks, allegedly in breach of a Railway Board Circular dated 8-12-1975.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant, having successfully cleared the written examination in 1996 and rendered six years of satisfactory service on a higher post, was wrongly denied selection to the post of clerk in the open line on the basis of low interview marks in contravention of the Railway Board Circular dated 8-12-1975.
- Consequently, whether he is entitled to appointment and seniority on the Group ‘C’ clerk post despite the earlier rejection of his claim for regularisation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Relied on the Railway Board Circular dated 8-12-1975, which directs that employees working satisfactorily on an ad-hoc promotional post should not be declared unsuitable solely on interview performance.
- Cited the Supreme Court judgment in R.C. Srivastava v. Union of India, where an identical circular was applied to set aside rejection based on interview marks.
- Asserted that he had passed the written examination in 1996 and had performed the duties of Material Checking Clerk for six years, demonstrating competence for the Group ‘C’ post.
Railways' Arguments
- Maintained that the appellant’s substantive appointment was on a Group ‘D’ post in the open line, entitling the administration to repatriate him.
- Sought to justify the repatriation and non-selection by emphasizing the appellant’s interview performance.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R.C. Srivastava v. Union of India | Employees satisfactorily working on an ad-hoc promotional post should not be declared unsuitable merely on interview marks; Railway Board Circular dated 8-12-1975 must be followed. | The Court applied the same principle to hold that the appellant’s non-selection on the basis of low interview marks was improper, warranting reconsideration of his selection. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court noted the undisputed facts that the appellant had:
- Rendered six years of service on the higher Group ‘C’ post of Material Checking Clerk;
- Successfully cleared the written component of the 1996 selection examination for clerk in the open line;
- Been denied selection solely because of lower marks in the interview.
2. The Bench examined the Railway Board Circular dated 8-12-1975, previously interpreted in R.C. Srivastava, which mandates that candidates with long, satisfactory ad-hoc service should not be disqualified merely due to interview scores.
3. Finding the factual matrix analogous to R.C. Srivastava, the Court held that the appellant’s rejection breached the circular’s protective intent. The Railways’ counsel was unable to refute the appellant’s satisfactory service record or his success in the written examination.
4. Accordingly, without revisiting the separate issue of regularisation addressed by the CAT and High Court, the Supreme Court focused on the illegality in the 1996 selection process and found that the appellant’s case deserved relief on that narrower ground.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The Railways are directed to consider the appellant for selection to the post of clerk in the open line on the basis of his position in the 1996 written examination panel and, upon such selection, to grant him appropriate seniority.
Implications: The decision grants the appellant a path to appointment and seniority on the Group ‘C’ post. The ruling applies the principle from R.C. Srivastava to enforce compliance with the Railway Board Circular but does not establish new legal precedent beyond reinforcing that existing directive.
D.M Dharmadhikari, J.— Leave to appeal is granted.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India representing the Railways are heard at length. The appellant joined the services in the Railways as casual labour in 1978. He was given a temporary status in the year 1983 and he continued to work on one of Group ‘D’ posts in “open line” of the Railways. In the year 1991, he was sent to the construction project to discharge duties on higher post of Material Checking Clerk. The Material Checking Clerk is Group ‘C’ post with higher pay on which he continued for a long period of six years. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking relief to regularise his services on the post of Material Checking Clerk on which he was working.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 21-3-2002 rejected his claim for regularisation on the post of Material Checking Clerk. The only relief granted was that on his repatriation to his parent organisation in “open line”, he would be entitled to pay protection “in accordance with rules, instructions and judicial pronouncements on the subject”. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads thus:
“6. In view of the fact that the impugned order dated 27-2-2001 relating to applicant's repatriation to his parent division in substantive cadre has been considered in Surinder Kumar, in all aspects of the matter, we also hold that applicant has no enforceable legal right to compel the respondents to regularise him as MCC in the construction organisation. The respondents are not precluded from seeking repatriation of applicant to his parent organisation in his substantive cadre. However, we also hold that applicant shall be entitled to pay protection in accordance with rules, instructions and judicial pronouncements on the subject.”
4. Not satisfied with a partial relief only of pay protection, the petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi by way of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court by a common judgment passed in the case of the present petitioner and other railway employees similarly appointed to Group ‘D’ post in “open line” and working on Group ‘C’ post on construction side, rejected the claim of the petitioner and upheld the order of the Tribunal.
5. In this special leave petition, after service of notices, the Union of India and the Railways represented by their authorities have filed counter-affidavit. In rejoinder-affidavit filed in response to the counter, the petitioner states that while he was working on the post of Material Checking Clerk in Group ‘C’, he competed in the year 1996 with others for regular selection to the post of clerk. He appeared in the written examination for regular appointment to the post of clerk in “open line”. He successfully cleared the written examination but was not selected for appointment because less marks were given to him in interview. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Railway Board's Circular dated 8-12-1975, which was considered and applied in favour of similarly placed employees by this Court in R.C Srivastava v. Union of India. The relevant part of the Railway Board Circular which was relied on by this Court in R.C Srivastava reads thus:
“2.2 Panel should be formed for selection posts in time to avoid ad hoc promotions. Care should be taken to see while forming panels that employees who have been working in the posts on ad hoc basis quite satisfactorily are not declared unsuitable in the interview. In particular, any employee reaching the field of consideration should be saved from harassment.”
6. Applying the abovesaid Railway Board circular in R.C Srivastava this Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was wrongly denied selection on the basis of marks given to him in the viva voce test. Consequently, this Court directed that R.C Srivastava should be considered to have been selected for the post of Law Assistant in the selection for the said post as per the panel prepared on 29-11-1992.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways made some efforts to justify the action of the Railways in repatriating the present appellant from Group ‘C’ post in construction organisation to Group ‘D’ post in “open line”. It is contended that the substantive appointment of petitioner was on Group ‘D’ post in the “open line”.
8. The learned counsel for the Railways could not dispute the fact that in regular selection for the post of clerk held in the year 1996, the petitioner appeared and passed the written examination but was declared fail due to less marks awarded in interview. The petitioner admittedly served for a long period of six years as Material Checking Clerk. His work and performance was within the knowledge of the railway authorities. He successfully cleared the written examination. In such circumstances, only on less marks given to him in interview, he could not have been found unfit in breach of the Railway Board's circular. The circular directs that employees working for a long period on promotion post satisfactorily are not to be declared unsuitable only on the basis of interview.
9. Based on the decision of this Court in R.C Srivastava, in our considered opinion, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of clerk in “open line”, with due regard to his work and performance on Group ‘C’ post in the project and successfully passing the written examination, deserves to be considered.
10. Without, therefore, going into the correctness of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his service on Group ‘C’ post, we allow this appeal on a different ground.
11. On the basis of his position in the selection list for the post of clerk in Group ‘C’ prepared on the basis of the written examination of the year 1996, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of clerk in the “open line” and on his selection and appointment grant him due seniority on that post.
12. The appeal is allowed with the above directions. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
Alert