Per : Honble Shri M.Nagarajan, Member (J) The matter came up for final hearing on 30-1-2017. On that day, neither the applicant nor anybody represented him. However, to give a last and final opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 31-1-2017 making it clear that if the applicant or his counsel fails to appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be further proceeded with on the basis of the materials available on record by exercising the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
2. In terms of the order dated 30-1-2017, the matter was listed on 31-1-2017. On that date, none appeared for the applicant and the following order was passed : The matter come up for final hearing on 30-1-2017 and the following order was passed : None for the parties. We have perused the pleadings, the documents annexed thereto and previous orders passed in the OA. When the matter was taken up on 28-4-2016 for hearing, the following order was passed : Shri C.P.Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicant has sent a leave note. Perusal of the earlier proceedings reveals that time and again, the learned counsel for the applicant is in habit of sending leave notes. However, with a view to give a last and final opportunity, the matter is adjourned to 24-6-2016. It is made clear that on the next date of hearing, if the learned counsel for the applicant does not appear, the matter will be proceeded by invoking the power under Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 12-8-2016 for final hearing, it was learnt that Shri C.P.Jadhav, learned counsel is no more and the Registry was directed to issue notice to the applicant informing the hearing date. Pursuant to the order dated 12-8-2016, Registry issued notice to the applicant on 17-8-2016. Subsequently, the matter was called on 23-9-2016 in terms of the order dated 12-8-2016. On that date, Shri K.K.Shah, the learned counsel submitted that he will be filing his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant and sought some time to enter appearance. Considering his submission, the matter was adjourned to 27-10-2016. On 27-10-2016, Shri K.K.Shah submitted that he will be filing his vakalatnama during the course of the day and prayed that the matter be taken on some other day. Accordingly, it was ordered to post the matter during the last week of January, 2017. Till today, no vakalatnama has been filed by Shri K.K.Shah, as submitted by him on 23-09-2016 & on 27-10-2016. Today, neither the applicant is present nor Shri K.K.Shah who undertook to enter appearance by filing his vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant is also not present. None represents Shri K.K.Shah. Respondents have filed their reply on 06-5-2015 pursuant to which the applicant has filed his rejoinder on 08-6-2015. After completion of the pleadings, the matter is pending for consideration for final hearing for more than a period of one and half years. Be that as it may. Considering the fact that none represent the applicant, with a view to give a last and final opportunity to the applicant, the matter is adjourned to 31-1-2017. It is made clear that if the applicant or his counsel fails to appear on the next date of hearing, we will have no other option, but to further proceed with the matter on the basis of the materials available on record by exercising the powers conferred upon the Tribunal under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Call on 31-1-2017. In spite of the above order, neither the applicant is present nor anybody represent him. After hearing Shri M.J.Patel, learned counsel for the respondents for some time, we are of the opinion that necessary documents are required to be verified for deciding the question in controversy. Hence, Shri M.J.Patel is directed to produce relevant records pertaining to the impugned panel dated 08-07-2013 vide Annexure A-1. Post the matter on 01-2-2017.
3. Pursuant to the above order, as per the direction of Shri M.J.Patel, learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Sharat Chauhan, Chief Office Superintendent (Confidential) is present before us and produces the File No.E(Confidential) 1025/JE (Electrical)/Part-II. The said file contains a sealed cover and the same is opened by us in the Open Court. We find that the sealed cover contains marks secured by all the candidates who have responded to the notification bearing No.E/1025/IAM/Electrical/Vol.I dated 21-02-2013 issued by the Railway administration for filling up the two vacancies of JE-Intermediate Apprentice, Electrical Department against 25% quota in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + 4200 G.P. at Loco, Carriage & Wagon Workshop, Dahod of serving employee.
4. The grievance of the applicant in this OA against the respondents is as to his non selection for promotion pursuant to the notification bearing No.E/1025/IAM/Electrical/Vol.I dated 21-02-2013.
5. Admittedly, the OA is not presented well within the time allowed. There is a delay of 96 days. Perused the averments and grounds urged in the MA No.51/2015. Having regard to the settled position of law that the Tribunal while dealing with an application for condonation of delay shall adopt a liberal, justice-oriented, pragmatic and non-pedantic approach, we are satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the OA well within the time allowed under Sub-Section (1) of the Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, MA No.51/2015 is allowed in exercise of the powers under Sub Section (3) of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. The method of selection to the post in question is governed by RBE No.272/1999 dated 20-10-1999. It is called as Guidelines for Personnel Officers and Members of Selection Boards constituted for conducting selections for promotion to posts classified as selection. Para 11.5.1 of the said RBE No.272/1999 provides the eligibility criteria for selection & empanelment. It reads as: 11.4 AWARD OF MARKS BY THE SELECTION BOARD 11.4.1 Selection Board members should be advised clearly that there should not be any cuttings and over-writings in the proceedings of the Selection Board and that serious objection of any cuttings and overwriting will be taken. (PARA 219(f) of IREM) 11.4.2 Marks are to be awarded by the Selection Board under the following heads: Professional Ability Written 35 Viva-voce 15 In the case of no written test and Only viva-voce 50 Personality, address, leadership and academic qualification 20 Record of service 15 Seniority 15 11.4.2.1 PROFESSIONAL ABILITY 11.4.2.1.1 Professional ability will carry a total of 50 marks. If there is written test, written exam will have a weightage of 35 marks (i. e. percentage of marks obtained in the written exam is reduced to 35). For example - an employee obtaining 60 % marks in written exam will get 21 marks in the professional ability ( 60 x35/100 =21). Balance 15 marks are to be awarded by the Selection Committee based on the performance of the employee in the viva-voce. (PARA 219(g) of IREM) 11.4.2.2 PERSONALITY, LEADERSHIP, ADDRESS, ACADEMIC AND TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 11.4.2.2.1 This head carries 20 marks. Marks are to be awarded on the basis of entries in the relevant column in the Confidential Reports, wherever maintained. (Note (i) below PARA 219(g) of IREM) 11.4.2.3 RECORD OF SERVICE 11.4.2.3.1 Confidential Reports for the last three years are to be considered. Marks are to be awarded depending upon the grading. Though the Railway Board have issued no clear mandatory orders, the following pattern for assessing the CRs can be followed:- Average 2 Marks Good 3 Marks Very Good 4 Marks Outstanding 5 Marks 11.5 ELEGIBILITY FOR EMPANELMENT 11.5.1 An employee must secure not less than 60% (30 out of 50) in the professional ability and not less than 60% in the aggregate to be eligible to be empanelled. (Note (iii) below PARA 219 (g) of IREM) NOTE : Even if a candidate secures 60% in overall aggregate but does not secure 60% in professional ability and viva-voce, he cannot be included in the panel.
7. The prayer of the applicant in this OA is as under : (A) Be pleased to call for the record of the applicant and other relevant records and after perusal the same. (B) Be pleased to direct the Chief Works Manager (CWM), Dahod (Resp. No.2) to amend/ modify provisional panel dated 08-07-2013 issued by the Chief Works Manager (CWM), Dahod (Resp. No.2) after assessing the service record of the applicant and place the applicant on final panel. (C ) Be pleased to direct the Chief Works Manager (CWM) Dahad (Resp. No.2) to issue the promotion order in favour of the applicant with all consequential benefits permission under the law. (D) Be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the Chief Works Manager (CWM), Dahod (Resp. No.2) is contrary to the provision of law. (E) Any other relief as court may deem fit.
8. In view of the prayer of the applicant in this OA, it is necessary for us to examine the fact whether the applicant has secured eligibility of 60% marks in the aggregate for being empanelled. Therefore, we have examined the said file No. E(Confidential) 1025/JE/Electrical/Part-II produced by the said Shri Sharat Chauhan. The assessment sheet of the candidates eligible for selection for the post of Intermediate Apprentice for JE in Electrical Department against 25% quota at LCW, Dabod shows that the total marks secured by the applicant is 56.50, which is less than requirement of 60%. The fact that the total vacancy notified in the said Notification dated 21-2-2013, only two is not in dispute.
9. The respondents have interviewed total six persons as against the said two vacancies. The particulars of the marks secured by all the six persons both in written examination and for Record of service is as under : Sl. No Name S/Shri Whether ST Place of working Design. Written test out of 100 Equated marks out of 50 Record of service 30 marks Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Vilas R.Pavar Gen Elec-loco ELF(P)III 60 30.00 20 50.00 2 Rajeshbhai N. Mavi ST Mains ELF(P)II 67 33.50 23 56.50 3 Ashokumar S. Pal (Applicant) Gen Elec-loco MCF 75 37.50 19 56.50 4 Mohd. Rafik Abbashi Gen Elec-loco ELF(P)I 62 31.00 19 50.00 5 Dharmendra kumar T Khanvanshi SC Mains ELF(P)II 77 338.50 25 63.50 6 Yogendra kumar B Mahavar SC Elect W/shop A/winder Gr.III 77 38.50 26 64.50
10. In the above list, the applicant finds place at Serial No.3. The entries against the applicants name show that the total mark secured by him is 56.50. It is less than the qualifying percentage of 60% prescribed in the said RBE No.272/1999 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, the direction sought by the applicant to the respondents to amend or modify the provisional panel dated 08-07-2013 cannot be granted.
11. The applicant has not made out any case in support of any of his prayer. He has to fail in his claim.
12. The OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13. There shall be no order as to costs. (E.K.Bharat Bhushan) (M.Nagarajan) Member (A) Member(J)