P.N. Ravindran, J.
In this writ appeal the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 30814/2014 challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge on 18.12.2014 declining an interim order as prayed for in the writ petition. The appellant is aggrieved by Ext.P8 letter dated 31.10.2014 sent by the sixth respondent to the fifth respondent informing him that the appellant and two others, who are medically de-categorized employees who were recommended for alternative post in the Ticket Checking Cadre, need not be relieved for the training as per the Chief Personnel Officer's instructions.
2. The appellant contends relying on Ext.P6 that he and two others were nominated, after being medically de-categorised for continuance in service as Constable in the Railway Protection Force for alternative post in Ticket checking cadre and was also nominated for initial training prescribed for probationary ticket examiners at Zonal Railway Training Institute, Tiruchirappally commencing from 10.11.2014, but later Ext.P8 communication was issued by the sixth respondent informing the fifth respondent that the appellant and two others similarly placed need not be sent for the said training. The principal contention raised in the instant writ appeal is that the Chief Personnel Officer has not issued any such instruction.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit dated 12.12.2014 is that it was pursuant to Ext.R6(b) letter sent by the Chief Personnel Officer that Ext.P8 communication was issued. The respondents also contended in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that even if the petitioners are not now send for training, their seniority in the service in which they will be later absorbed will not be affected. No rule or regulation which contains such a stipulation is produced along with the counter affidavit.
4. As regards his first contention that it was pursuant to the Chief Personnel Officer's instructions that Ext.P8 is issued, we find nothing in Ext.R6(b) letter to substantiate the said contention. All that is stated in Ext.R6 (b) letter is that only four persons need be sent for training from Palakkad. The Chief Personnel Officer has not in Ext.R6 (b) letter stated that the four employees should be serial Nos.1 to 4 in Ext.P6. That apart, no reason is stated in Ext.R6(b) as to why only four employees need be sent for training from Palakkad, when from Madras 13, from Trichinappilly 10, from Salem 8, from Madurai 8 and from Thiruvananthapuram 7 have been sent for training. There is also no case for the respondents that in the Zonal Railway Training Institute at Tiruchirappally more than 50 persons cannot be accommodated for training. No rule or regulation which prescribes that training can be imparted at a given point of time to only 50 persons also not placed on record. The training admittedly did not commence on 10.11.2014. It has commenced only today. Such being the situation, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a prima facie case warranting the grant of an order directing the respondents to forthwith nominate and send him for training pursuant to Ext.P6 communication. We accordingly hold that the respondents shall send the appellant also for training along with serial Nos.1 to 4 mentioned in Ext.P6. In view of the fact that the appellant is the last person named in Ext.P6 list, serial Nos.5 and 6 also cannot be denied the said benefit, if they are desirous of undergoing training along with appellant.
We accordingly, dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to respondents to depute serial Nos.5, 6 and 7 named in Ext.P6 also for training at the Zonal Railway Training Institute, Tiruchirappally, which commenced today.
The writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
Registry to issue certified copy of the judgment, if applied for to learned counsel on both sides today itself.
Sd/-
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
shg/ A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE