IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17756 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17760 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH ========================================= ========================================= SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD, S/O SHRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD & 12 - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA, THRO CHAIRMAN & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance :
MR NIRAV R MISHRA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 13. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH Date : 25/09/2012 ORAL (COMMON) JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. An advertisement was issued on 15.12.1995 by the Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedabad inviting applications for the post of Commercial Clerk vide Employment Notice No. 3/95-96. In pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners applied for appearing in the preliminary examination. The examination as per the advertisement was to be held as two tier examination – one written and thereafter interview. The petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination on 22.6.1997. However, the result was not declared and due to some irregularities, the railway administration took decision on 1.9.1999 to cancel the preliminary examination and also ordered for re-examination. Prior to the cancellation of the examination, new Rules known as “Elimination of Viva-voce (Interview) in RRB Recruitments” were notified by the Railways on 18.3.1999. The effect of the said Rules was that after the publication of the Rules was that the method of selection was changed and it was decided to hold single written examination without any interview. However, in para 7 of these Rules it was clarified that these Rules shall be applicable to the selections notified after the issuance of these Rules, meaning thereby; if any advertisement is issued on or after 18.3.1999 then the procedure prescribed by the new Rules would be applicable. Since in the instant case, advertisement has been issued much before the enforcement of the new Rules i.e. on 15.12.1995 and preliminary examination was held on 22.6.1997, and therefore, re- examination would be governed by the old Rules. The petitioners appeared in the re-examination of the preliminary examination and were successful. In the interview, they could not succeed. According to the petitioner they were not aware prior to the interview that interview would be taken. Be that as it may, since the petitioners failed to qualify in the interview, they were not selected. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 17756 of 2011, thereafter filed Original Application No.261/2008 and petitioners of Special Civil Application No17760 of 2011 filed Original Application No.262/2008 respectively before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) which were dismissed by order dated 24.1.2011 on the ground that some candidates who have challenged the re-examination and their Original Applications had been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners' case was required to be examined as the petitioners were claiming benefit of the new Rules. As stated earlier, the new Rules would apply only to the advertisement issued on or after 18.3.1999. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in law in dismissing the Original Applications. The Review Applications filed by the petitioners has also been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 19.9.2011. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunal. The writ petitions are devoid of any merits and are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp