Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Argued by: Mr. R.P Singh, Advocate
  • Argued by: Mr. R.T.P.S Tulsi, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala.
Judges
  • M.S Sullar, Judicial Member
  • Uday Kumar Varma, Administrative Member
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Argued by: Mr. R.P Singh, Advocate
  • Argued by: Mr. R.T.P.S Tulsi, Advocate along with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala.
Judges
  • M.S Sullar, Judicial Member
  • Uday Kumar Varma, Administrative Member
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Tribunal Opinion Summary: Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Har Lal — Original Application re: Promotion to Goods Guard

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Ram Kumar, joined the Railways on a regular basis on 26.04.1983 as a Gang Man and was subsequently promoted to Kantewala (1990) and then Cabin Man (1994) at Bathinda Railway Station. Following introduction of new power technology and built power cabins, certain Cabin Man posts were declared surplus (letter dated 15.03.2010). The applicant contends he was not redeployed to a TNC/Train Clerk post like other similarly situated Cabin Man employees and was instead transferred (letter dated 01.03.2011), allegedly to accommodate another employee.

In 2011 a departmental examination was held to fill 21 posts of Goods Guard (60% quota). Ninety-five candidates (including the applicant) were declared successful in the written test; the applicant scored 61.5 marks and was shown at Sr. No. 22 in the result list. The applicant alleged that persons with lower marks (including Respondent No. 5 and Harbans Lal as per a produced chart) were promoted, contrary to instructions of the Ministry of Railways dated 19.06.2009/01.07.2009 (Annexure A-2) which require panels for such general posts to be prepared strictly on the basis of merit.

The applicant's representations were rejected by the competent authority by order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1). He filed the instant Original Application (O.A). A Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal earlier dismissed the O.A by order dated 30.04.2015. The applicant then filed CWP No. 16143/2015 before the High Court, confined his relief only to the promotion to Goods Guard, and the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication (order dated 11.05.2016). This summary concerns the Tribunal's fresh decision on the confined relief.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the applicant's claim for promotion to the post of Goods Guard was wrongly rejected by the competent authority.
  2. Whether the respondents violated the Ministry of Railways' instructions (dated 19.06.2009/01.07.2009) requiring that panels for promotion to general posts be prepared strictly on the basis of merit, particularly where candidates from different categories are considered.
  3. Whether any procedural or equitable bar (for example, the applicant not approaching the Tribunal with clean hands) precludes relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The applicant asserted that he scored 61.5 marks in the departmental examination and was entitled to promotion on the basis of merit under the Ministry instructions (Annexure A-2).
  • He alleged that similarly situated Cabin Men at Bathinda were redeployed as TNC/Train Clerk while he was transferred to another station to accommodate another employee (Vijay Kumar), showing arbitrariness in management action.
  • He claimed that persons with lesser marks — specifically Respondent No. 5 and Harbans Lal (as per Annexure A-9) — were promoted to Goods Guard, in violation of the instruction that panels be strictly by merit, and sought quashing of the impugned order and his promotion with consequential benefits.
  • The applicant produced an evaluation chart (Annexure A-9) and a chart (Annexure A-9) purporting to show he had higher marks than those promoted.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The respondents raised preliminary objections (maintainability, limitation, cause of action, locus standi) in the written statement.
  • On the merits, they explained that the applicant's transfer was within the same grade and grade pay; other persons were declared surplus and re-deployed according to eligibility and educational qualifications.
  • Recruitment to the 21 vacant Goods Guard posts was by promotion from six distinct feeder categories (STNC & TNC; Sr. TC & TC; Sr. Comml Clerk & Comml Clerk; Shtg Master/Jdr; Switchman/Cabin Man; Sr. Assistant Guard & Assistant Guard) with separate quotas (22%, 5%, 7%, 12%, 7% and 7% respectively), and within these quotas reservation for SC/ST applied (Annexure R-4).
  • Only 95 candidates secured 60% and above in the written test and were declared qualified for further consideration; the applicant did not have higher marks than the promoted persons in his own category (Points Man/Shunt Man/Cabin Man) and therefore was not entitled to promotion.
  • They explained that Harbans Lal (with 60.75 in a typed extract) was not part of the panel corresponding to the applicant's category and that the applicant had produced an incorrect/typed extract (Annexure A-9) which misrepresented the evaluation sheet.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded in a focused, step-by-step manner to resolve the narrow controversy confined to the promotion claim:

  1. Scope of adjudication: The Tribunal recognized that the applicant had confined his relief solely to the claim for promotion to Goods Guard (as done before the High Court) and that the relevant Ministry instructions (Annexure A-2) required that panels for promotion to general posts drawn from different categories should be prepared strictly on merit.
  2. Identification of applicable rules: The Tribunal noted the promotional scheme involved six distinct feeder categories, each with specified quotas, and further that reservation rules (Annexure R-4) dictated how vacancies should be filled. Therefore, merit had to be assessed within the applicant's own feeder category (Points Man/Shunt Man/Cabin Man/Cabin Man), not across all categories.
  3. Examination of the applicant's evidence: The applicant relied on a typed extract of an evaluation chart (Annexure A-9) to show he had higher marks (61.50) than some promoted persons (e.g., a Harbans Lal indicated at 60.75). The Tribunal noted an apparent inconsistency that required clarification because the respondents' counsel could not initially explain it.
  4. Summons and fact-finding: Because of the ambiguity, the Tribunal summoned the Divisional Railway Manager (Respondent No. 3) to explain the evaluation records and the composition of the panel. The Divisional Railway Manager filed an additional affidavit and produced the actual panel (Annexure MA-1) and the accurate evaluation details for the applicant's category (Annexure MA-2).
  5. Resolution of the discrepancy: The Divisional Railway Manager explained that the typed extract produced by the applicant (Annexure A-9) was incorrect or misleading: the Harbans Lal who appeared at Sr. No. 10 in the applicant's typed extract was not the same person included in the actual panel; the Harbans Lal who was promoted belonged to a different feeder category (Shtg Master) and was promoted based on his merit within that separate category and quota. The correct marks and names for the applicant's own feeder category showed that those promoted from his feeder category (e.g., Sohan Lal 74.50, Sita Ram 69.00, Sardara Singh 68.25) had substantially higher marks than the applicant.
  6. Application of principles to facts: Given that promotions were allocated by distinct category quotas and by assessing merit within each category, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not higher in merit within his category and thus was not entitled to promotion as claimed. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ministry instruction requiring panels to be prepared by merit did not translate into cross-category comparison where separate quotas and categories applied.
  7. Equity / clean hands consideration: The Tribunal further concluded that the applicant had produced a wrong typed extract to suggest he had higher marks than promoted candidates and thereby attempted to mislead the Tribunal. This conduct meant the applicant had not approached the Court with clean hands, which weighed against granting relief.
  8. Conclusion of analysis: On both the factual record (correct evaluation sheets/panel composition) and the equitable consideration (misrepresentation), the Tribunal concluded there was no merit in the applicant's claim and that dismissal with costs was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Original Application is DISMISSED. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. with costs of Rs. 5,000 on the applicant.

Implications:

  • Direct consequence: The applicant's challenge to the rejection of his claim for promotion to Goods Guard is refused; he is not entitled to promotion on the basis advanced in the O.A. and must pay costs of Rs. 5,000.
  • Reasoning basis: The decision rests on the correct interpretation and application of the promotion mechanism (separate feeder categories and quotas, and reservation rules) and the factual finding that the applicant misrepresented the evaluation chart; promoted candidates in the applicant's own category had higher marks than the applicant.
  • Broader precedent: The opinion does not discuss or announce any new wider legal principle beyond the application of the existing promotion rules and the equitable principle regarding approaching the Court with clean hands. The decision's effect is confined to the parties and the specific factual matrix before the Tribunal.

Documents and references mentioned in the opinion (e.g., Annexures A-1 to A-9, R-1 to R-4, MA-1, MA-2) were central to the Tribunal's fact-finding and are cited in the Tribunal's reasoning as the primary evidentiary basis for its conclusions.

Show full summary ...

    Ram Kumar v. Union Of India

    1. The challenge in this Original Application (O.A) preferred by applicant Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Har Lal, is to the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1), whereby his claims for considering him for re-deployment as TNC/Train Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (G.P Rs. 2400/-), being a surplus cabin Man, and his representations in this regard as well as for his promotion to the post of Goods Guard, were rejected by the Competent Authority.

    2. The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the confined relief with regard to his promotion to the post of Goods Guard, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the CWP No. 16143/2015, filed by the applicant, vide order dated 11.05.2016 & in this Tribunal also, and exposited from the record, is that the applicant initially joined on 26.04.1983 on regular basis as Gang Man in the Railways. He was posted at Railway Station, Abohar. Thereafter, he was promoted as Kantewala in the year 1990 and was lastly promoted as Cabin Man at Bhatinda Railway Station in the year 1994. It was alleged that in the year 2010, on introduction of New Power Technology and Built Power Cabin at Kalka, Bathinda and Saharanpur Railway Stations in the Ambala Division, some posts were declared surplus on the above mentioned Railway Stations, including 27 posts of Cabin Man at Bhatinda Railway Station in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (G.P Rs. 2400/-), vide letter dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure A-3). Although he was working as Cabin Man in the pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (G.P 2400/-) at Bathinda Railway Station, but was not considered for deployment to the post of TNC/Trains Clerk like other similarly situated Cabin Man at Bathinda Railway Station. Instead of re-deploying him as TNC, he was illegally and arbitrarily transferred from Bathinda Railway Station to the Bathinda Cantt Railway Station, vide letter dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure A-4), just to adjust one Vijay Kumar (Respondent No. 4) at Bhatinda Railway Station.

    3. The case set up by the applicant, in brief, insofar as relevant, is that in the year 2011, the respondents have decided to hold a departmental examination for filling up 21 posts of Goods Guard in the PB-I Rs. 5200-20200 (G.P Rs. 2800/-) against the 60% quota. Accordingly, the applicant and other eligible staff from different categories applied for the examination. As per the result (Annexure A-6), 95 candidates including the applicant were declared successful. The applicant obtained 61.5 marks and figured at Sr. 22 in the list of successful candidates. It was claimed that as per instructions dated 19.06.2009/01.07.2009 (Annexure A-2) issued by the Ministry of Railways, irrespective of the seniority, panels should be strictly prepared as per merit with reference to the marks obtained by the candidates in ‘Professional ability’ and ‘Record of Service’.

    4. The case of the applicant further proceeds that the respondents have selected 21 candidates for the post of Goods Guard out of total 95 candidates. Out of those 21 candidates, only 18 have been sent to T.P-2 test which is mandatory for the selection and out of those, only 17 have been declared as successful candidates and have been appointed/posted to the post of Goods Guard, vide letters dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure A-7) and 05.10.2011 (Annexure A-8).

    5. According to the applicant, the respondents have violated the instructions (Annexure A-2) and have selected six candidates including Respondent No. 5, for promotion to the post of Goods Guard, who all were lower in merit and having lesser marks than the applicant in the examination. Even Respondent No. 5 was stated to have the lowest marks in the departmental examination but still he was promoted to the pointed post.

    6. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail, in all, the applicant claimed that although he got more marks, but the competent authority has wrongly promoted Respondent No. 5, who was having lesser marks and ignored the claim of the applicant, without any basis. The representations for redressal of grievance, filed by the applicant, were stated to have been rejected, without assigning any cogent reason, vide impugned order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1), by the Competent Authority.

    7. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant O.A, challenging the impugned order (Annexure A-1) and action of the respondents on the ground that the official respondents have violated the provisions of the instructions dated 19.06.2009/01.07.2009, Annexure A-2, issued by the Ministry of Railways, while rejecting his claim, which provide that in promotion to the general posts, seniority shall not be considered and merit list shall be prepared strictly on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Professional Eligibility and Record of Service. According to the applicant, although he secured 61.5 marks, but the respondents have promoted the persons who secured lesser marks than him. In particular, he mentioned the case of Harbans Lal s/o Hari Ram who had secured 60.75 marks (lesser than the applicant) and was yet given promotion. He produced a chart (Annexure A-9) to support this claim. Thus, the action of the respondents was stated to be contrary to the instructions and selection of the persons including Respondent No. 5, having lesser marks than the applicant, is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. On the strength of the aforesaid ground, the applicant has prayed that the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1) and promotion of persons who are having lesser marks than the applicant be set aside and he be promoted to the post of Goods Guard, on the basis of marks obtained in the departmental examination, with all consequential benefits.

    8. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant, and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action and locus standi of the applicant. All the representations of the applicant were decided, in compliance with the order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure R-1), by the competent authority. However, on merits, it was pleaded that the applicant was transferred from the post of Cabin Man BTI to Cabin Man BTIC in the same grade and grade pay. The other persons were declared surplus and re-deployed to the other posts, as per their eligibility and educational qualification. It was admitted that the applications to fill 21 vacant posts of Goods Guard were invited from the eligible category of the employees working as Train Clerk/Sr. Train Clerk, Commercial Clerk/Sr. Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector/Sr. Ticket Collector, Assistant Guard and Switchman/Yard Staff working in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + G.P.1900, Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 2000 and Rs. 5200-20200 + G.P 2400, with three years service having different nature of duties and different seniority units, as per eligibility criteria contained in notification dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure R-3). It was also admitted that only 95 candidates could secure 60% and above marks in the written test. They were declared qualified for further consideration of empanelment to the post of Goods Guard in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + G.P Rs. 2800/-. The applicant was not promoted to the post of Goods Guard as he obtained lesser marks in his particular category than the promoted persons.

    9. According to the respondents, there are six categories in the feeder cadre from which the promotion to the post of Goods Guard has been made i.e (i) STNC & TNC (2) Sr. TC & TC (3) Sr. Comml Clerk & Comml Clerk (4) Shtg Master/Jdr (5) Switch Man/Cabin Man and (6) Sr. Assistant Guard & Assistant Guard. All these six categories have different quota each to the extent to 22%, 5%, 7%, 12%, 7% and 7% respectively, for promotion to the post in question. In these quotas, the posts are to be filled up by applying reservation i.e for SC and ST, as per instructions dated 06.03.1999 (Annexure R-4). The relevant Note 3 of Annexure R-4 is as under:—

    “If in a particular category the requisite number of candidate is not selected the balance of the vacancies reserved for that category should be filled from other categories from amongst those who have secured highest marks in the orders of merit without reference to the category to which they belong.”

    10. It was claimed that although the applicant belongs to SC category but he has secured lower merit/less marks in aggregate than the other empanelled candidates in his particular category of Cabin Man. As such he is not entitled to be promoted to the post of Goods Guard. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of reply and, in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that virtually acknowledging the factual matrix and reiterating the validity of the impugned order/action, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds contained in the O.A, and prayed for its dismissal.

    11. Controverting the pleadings in the written statement of the respondents and reiterating the allegations and grounds contained in the O.A, the applicant filed his rejoinder.

    12. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention that earlier the present O.A was dismissed, vide order dated 30.04.2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal.

    13. Dissatisfied thereby, the applicant filed Civil Writ Petition (CWP) NO. 16143 of 2015 in which the counsel for the applicant has given up all other claims and confined his relief only qua promotion to the post of Goods Guard. As a consequence thereof, the order of this Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh decision vide order dated 11.05.2016 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The operative part of the order reads as under:—

    “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his relief only qua promotion to the post of Goods Guard and since the said claim was finally rejected vide order dated 10.07.2013, the OA filed by him in March 2014 within one year, cannot be termed as barred by law of limitation.

    Since the question of limitation has not been gone into by the CAT keeping in view the order dated 10.07.2013, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration by the CAT.

    While we do not express any views on merits on the question of limitation or on the relief sought by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner's claim qua promotion to the post of Goods Guard deserves to be re-adjudicated, of course, without prejudice to the objections taken by the respondents that the claim is still barred by limitation or that he has not approached the CAT with clean hands.

    For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2015, render the case to CAT for fresh adjudication on the above stated issues. Parties are directed to appear before the CAT on 27.06.2016”

    14. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of case are neither intricate nor much disputed and fall within a very narrow compass to decide the real controversy between the parties. Such this being the position on record, the short and significant question that arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Goods Guard was wrongly rejected by the competent authority or not. That is how we are seized of the matter.

    15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, we are of the firm view that the answer to the posed question must, obviously, be in the negative, and as there is no merit, so the instant O.A deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein-below.

    16. As is evident from the record, the applicant has confined his relief only with regard to his promotion to the post of Goods Guard in the Hon'ble High Court as well as in this Tribunal. In this regard, the instructions (Annexure A-2) were issued by the Ministry of Railways, which postulate that in case of promotion to the General Posts in which candidates are called from different categories, whether in the same department or from the different departments and where the zone of consideration is not confined to three times the number of staff to be empanelled, panels should be strictly prepared as per merit, with reference to marks obtained by the candidates in ‘Professional ability’ and ‘Record of service’. It is not a matter of dispute that the respondents have invited applications to fill 21 vacant posts of Goods Guard by way of promotion from different eligible categories of the employees working as Train Clerk/Sr. Train Clerk, Commercial Clerk/Sr. Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector/Sr. Ticket Collector, Assistant Guard and Switchman/Yard Staff working in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + G.P.1900, Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 2000 and Rs. 5200-20200 + G.P 2400, with three years' service having different nature of duties and different seniority units, as per eligibility criteria contained in notification dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure R-3). There were six categories in the feeder cadre from which promotion to the post of Goods Guard has been made. (i) STNC & TNC (2) Sr. TC & TC (3) Sr. Comml Clerk & Comml Clerk (4) Shtg Master/Jdr (5) Switch Man/Cabin Man and (6) Sr. Assistant Guard & Assistant Guard. All these six categories have different quota each to the extent to 22%, 5%, 7%, 12%, 7% and 7% respectively, for promotion to the post in question. In these quotas, the posts are to be filled up by applying reservation i.e for SC and ST, as per instructions dated 06.03.1999 (Annexure R-4). The applicant was working as Cabin Man and his promotion to the post of Goods Guard was to be considered, as per percentage of marks obtained by the candidates of that category only.

    17. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has contended with some amount of vehemence that as per typed extract of evaluation chart (Annexure A-9), applicant Ram Kumar secured 61.50 marks in SC category, whereas one Harbans Lal s/o Sh. Hari Ram at Sr. No. 10 got lesser 60.75 marks in the same category and has been selected. The argument was that the respondents have ignored the merit as per instructions (Annexure A-2) and appointed the persons who secured lesser marks than the applicant. The argument, at the first instance, appeared somewhat convincing, particularly when learned counsel for the respondents was unable to explain the ambiguity and inconsistency.

    18. As a consequence thereof, the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt (Respondent No. 3) was summoned to explain the matter, vide order dated 09.02.2017 by this Tribunal, which reads as under:—

    “Applicant Ram Kumar s/o Sh. Har Lal, claiming himself to be eligible person for promotion to the post of Goods Guard, has preferred the instant Original Application (OA), challenging the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1), whereby his prayer, for quashing the impugned result of promotion to the post of Goods Guard, was rejected by the competent authority.

    During the course of arguments, it revealed that applicant Ram Kumar secured aggregate 61.50 marks out of 90 marks and he was not promoted. Whereas one Harbans Lal, who secured only 60.75 marks, has been promoted, ignoring the more merit of the applicant, in the reserved SC category.

    Neither the counsel for the respondents was able to explain this factual matrix, nor it was at all considered/explained by the competent authority in the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure A-1). Since the learned counsel for the respondents has miserably failed to explain the indicated ambiguity and inconsistency, so we have no option but to summon the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt (Respondent No. 3), to explain the matter, in this relevant connection, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties.

    Therefore, the O.A is adjourned to 28.02.2017, for arguments, as well as personal presence of Respondent No. 3, to explain the matter, in this regard.

    Copy dasti.”

    19. In compliance thereof, Respondent No. 3 appeared, filed an additional reply by way of an affidavit and very fairly explained that the applicant has misrepresented this Court by producing wrong typed extract of evaluation chart (Annexure A-9) wherein Harbans Lal s/o Hari Ram was mentioned to have secured 60.75 marks whereas the applicant was shown to have secured 61.50 marks. He has wrongly shown in Annexure A-9 that he obtained more marks than the promoted persons in the particular category, as his name was never included in the panel dated 04.07.2011 for selection of Goods Guard (Annexure MA-1). It was further explained that indeed one Harbans Lal s/o Sh. Dharam Chand was shown at Sr. No. 15 that too from different category i.e Shtg Master of un-reserved category, who was selected, on the basis of his merit position. The exact position was explained in the additional affidavit, which reads as under:—

    “Deponent submits that impugned order dated 10.07.2013 does not bear any reference to Sh. Harbans Lal/Hari Ram Pointsman/Kiratpur (KART) at Sr. No. 10 of Annexure A-9 of the O.A (who secured 60.75 marks), as his name is not included in the panel dated 04.07.2011, for selection of Goods Guard, a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure MA-1.

    4. Deponent further submits the details of persons placed in the panel against (7%) seven percent quota (UR_02 SC01) of the category of Points Man/Shunt Man/Cabin Man, to which the applicant belongs as per evaluation chart of selection at Annexure MA-2.

    S. No. Name/Father's Name Desgn./Stn. UR/SC Total Marks 1. Sohan Lal/Dhani Ram Points Man/SML SC as UR 74.50 2. Sita Ram/Bhagwana Points Man/UMB SC as SC 69.00 3. Sardara Singh/Bhag S. Points Man/RPAR UR SC 68.25

    5. One other Sh. Harbans Lal/Dharam Chand Shtg Master/Shimla UR has been included in the panel dated 04.07.2011 on the basis of his merit position in his own separate category of Shtg Master/Shtg. Jdr (12% quota, 05 posts).

    6. That the impugned order dated 10.07.2013 were passed by the competent authority in compliance to the Hon'ble Tribunal's orders dated 18.04.2013 in O.A No. 491.HR/2013 wherein the competent authority was directed to take a view on the representations dated 30.06.2012, 30.11.2012, 11.12.2012 & 19.02.2013 (Annexures A-4, A-5, A-7 & A-8 respectively). Pertinent to mention that none of these above representations of the applicant had any reference of Sh. Harbans Lal/Hari Ram at Sr. No. 10 of Annexure A-9 of the O.A or Sh. Harbans Lal/Dharam Chand Shtg. Master/Shimla.”

    20. Meaning thereby, a perusal of the record would reveal that Sohan Lal s/o Dhani Ram secured 74.50 marks, Sita Ram s/o Bhagwana secured 69.00 marks and Sardara Singh s/o Sh. Bhag Singh secured 68.25 marks, who were promoted as Goods Guard from the category to which the applicant belongs i.e of Points Man/Shunt Man/Cabin Man, in their respective quota. All the persons, promoted to the post of Goods Guard, from the category of the applicant, secured much more marks than the applicant. On the contrary, Harbans Lal s/o Sh. Dharam Chand, was promoted as Goods Guard from entirely different category of Shtg Master. Thus, the applicant has no claim over the promotional post of Goods Guard, but he tried to mislead this Tribunal by producing typed wrong extract of evaluation sheet (Annexure A-9) in this regard. The learned counsel for the applicant has miserably failed to explain the matter in this regard.

    21. Therefore, it is held that all the indicated promoted persons got more marks than the applicant in the particular category of Cabin Man. He has tried to mislead the Court by producing the wrong extract of evaluation sheet (Annexure A-9), in which even the name of Harbans Lal was wrongly mentioned, with an attempt to obtain the relief. Since he has tried to mislead and has not come to the Court with clean hands, so otherwise also he is not entitled to any relief, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Hence, the O.A, filed by him, deserves to be dismissed with costs.

    22. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, so the O.A is hereby dismissed as such, with costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the applicant.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ram Kumar v. Union Of India
    (Feb 28, 2017)