Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14610 of 2020 Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Namdev And 57 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Vikash Chandra Tripathi
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 2nd November, 2020 whereby the original application preferred by the petitioners along with an application for condonation of delay was dismissed.
It is a case where respondents Railway Recruitment Cell issued an advertisement in December, 2017 for selection to the post in Group-D. The selection was held pursuant to the advertisement followed by declaration of result on 23rd August, 2012. The name of the petitioners were published in the list of selected candidate but they were not given appointment for the reason that their name appeared in the shadow list prepared to the extent of 20% of the vacancies in terms of the advertisement. Out of 5349 qualified candidates, 3900 candidates were given appointment. The applicants-petitioners were waiting for their chance of appointment, thus did not prefer an original application till the year 2019 despite the fact that result of the selection was declared on 23.08.2012 followed appointment in the year 2014 itself.
Certain set of candidates preferred an original application in the year 2014 itself to challenge the action of the respondents. The original application was therein disposed of and ultimately the matter went to Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.11360 of 2018. It was decided vide judgement dated 27th November, 2018.
The Apex Court kept applicability of judgement limited to the appellants who approached the Tribunal. The applicants-petitioners preferred an original application after the judgment of the Apex Court. By the time not only limitation provided under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short Act of 1985) expired but even the life time of the panel of two years also expired. The original application of the petitioners was to make a claim out of the select list already expired. The original application was however dismissed finding it to be barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the original application of similarly placed candidates was allowed by the Apex Court by its judgement dated 27th November, 2018, the petitioners, being similarly placed, should have been extended the benefit after condonation of delay. The Tribunal erred in dismissing the application ignoring the fact aforesaid.
A reference of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma & others Vs. Union of India & others 1997(4) SLR 774 has also been to support the judgement. The prayer is to set aside the judgement of the Tribunal with acceptance of the prayer made in the original application.
It is more so when the petitioners were waiting for the action of the respondents during the intervening period and otherwise merit of the petitioners should not have been ignored as otherwise person with lessor merit may be getting appointment.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
The facts not in dispute are that pursuant to the advertisement and selection for the post in Group-D service, the result was declared on 23rd August, 2012. A shadow list to the extent of 20% of the vacancies was prepared followed by appointment in the year 2014 itself. The petitioners did not approach the Tribunal at that stage despite the fact that he was not given appointment while the candidates named in the main select list were given appointment. It is also a fact that the other candidates preferred an original application then and there but the petitioners failed to espouse their cause by taking the remedy, as was available under the Act of 1985.
The original application to seek the appointment out of the shadow list was preferred in the year 2019 i.e. almost after five years of the order of appointment in favour of others. It is also at the stage when the Apex Court had already given judgement in reference to the selection in question and therein the effect of the judgement was made limited to the candidates who approached the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the original application was treated to be time barred having no sufficient cause to condone the delay.
We find no error in the judgement passed by the Tribunal because a person/candidate sleeping over the matter cannot seek relief after the expiry of the period of limitation and it cannot be in reference to the judgement in favour of others when the effect of the judgement by the Apex Court was kept limited for the candidates who had approached the Tribunal before the judgement dated 27th November, 2018. The relevant para 14 of the said judgement is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
14. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court and CAT, Jabalpur Bench are set aside. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of the letter dated 02.07.2008. While allowing the appeals we issue the following directions:-
(i) The benefit of this judgment shall only be available to those appellants who had approached the CAT:
(ii) The appellants shall not be entitled to any back wages:
(iii) The appellants shall for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay be placed immediately above the first selected candidates of the selection process which commenced in the year 2012 and, immediately below the candidates of the selection list of 2010 in order of seniority.
(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of such deemed appointment only for the purposes of fixation of pay and seniority.
Sub-para (i) of the para quoted above makes it clear the benefit of judgement would be available only to apellants, who had approached the CAT. The effect of judgement is thus kept limited to those candidates who had approached the Tribunal and were appellant before the Apex Court.
The petitioners herein are those who preferred original application much subsequent to the judgement of Supreme Court.
The aforesaid is only one part otherwise it is also a fact that currency period of the panel was only of two years. It expired in the year 2016 even if a liberal construction is taken otherwise it expired in the year 2014 if it is taken from the date of declaration of the result.
It is settled law that one cannot make a claim based on the dead panel.
The issue aforesaid was raised by the respondents before the Tribunal. It has been mentioned in para 11 of the judgement impugned herein. For ready reference, para 11 of the judgement impugned herein is also quoted hereunder:-
“11. The Learned counsel for respondents has filed objection, wherein the delay condonation application has been opposed on the ground that selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.12.2007 has already been completed and the validity of select panel issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell (in short RRC) in pursuance of the said advertisement has already expired. Therefore, the claim of the applicants is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the instant O.A. is highly time barred. The entire process was completed in the year 2014. Since all the applicants had secured less marks that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in their respective category, they were not selected in pursuance of the advertisement in question. Therefore, there was no question of issuing appointment letters to the applicants.”
In the light of the aforesaid also, apart from the issue dealt by by the Tribunal finding no justification of delay, we find another reason to reject the claim made by the petitioners. It is apart from the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & others Vs. South East Central Railway & others in Civil Appeal Nos.11360-11363 of 2018 dated 27.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioners however made a reference of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of K.C. Sharma & others (Supra).
The issue was decided in reference to the application of condonation of delay. The judgement in the case of K.C. Sharma & others (Supra) would not be applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that in the case in hand, the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (Supra), had made the judgment limited to those appellants who had approached the Tribunal and outcome of the direction of the Apex Court has already been given above. We cannot direct consideration of the case of the petitioner contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case in hand itself whereas it was not so in the case of K.C. Sharma & others (Supra).
In view of the aforesaid, judgement in the case of K.C. Sharma & others (Supra) would not be applicable and otherwise we have supplied additional reason to dismiss the original application so as the present writ petition as claim is arising out of the dead panel having expired in the year 2016.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners again made a reference of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (Supra). Our attention was drawn to the para 11 of the said judgement which is quoted hereunder:-
“11. It has been urged before us that the validity of the panel was only for two years and since the last merit list was published for March, 2014, validity of the list has expired in March 2016. This submission is only to be rejected. The appellants herein who approached the CAT and the High Court with promptitude cannot suffer only because the matter was pending in Court.”
We find that even in para 11 is of no assistance to the petitioners because the argument about expiry of the panel was not accepted in a case where the cause was litigated before the expiry of the panel.
It is well settled that if a writ petition is filed before the expiry of the panel, it would not be dismissed if during the pendency of the writ petition, the life time of the panel expires. However, the case in hand is not of such nature because the original application was preferred after the expiry of the currency of the panel.
Thus, for all reasons given by us, we are unable to accept the prayer made by the petitioner or even to cause interference in the judgement of the C.A.T.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 piyush