IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.12048 OF 2016 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2015 (S – CAT) IN W.P.NO.12048 OF 2016 BETWEEN FRANCIS, S/O CHARLAS, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, EX-LOCO PILOT/PASSENGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU AND RESIDING AT NEAR SHASTRI HOUSE, HALE ARALAPURA, GUTTUR POST, HARIHARA – 577 528. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRACHAR.M, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN ZONE, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI – 580 020.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU – 570 026. … RESPONDENTS (SRI.N.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CAT, BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.252/2012 DATED 13.08.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE – A IN SO FAR AS IT QUASHES ANNEXURE – A9, A10, A11 PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION O.A.NO.252 OF 2012 AND ALLOW O.A.NO.252 OF 2012 AS PRAYED FOR.
IN W.P.NO.301 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN ZONE, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI – 580 020.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU – 570 021 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.N.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND FRANCIS, S/O CHARLAS, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, EX-LOCO PILOT/PASSENGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU RESIDING AT NEAR SHASTRI HOUSE, HALE ARALAPURA, GUTTUR POST, HARIHARA – 577 601. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR.M, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CAT, BENGALURU IN O.A.NO.252 OF 2012 DATED 13.08.2013 (ANNEXURE – A) IN SO FAR AS IT QUASHES ANNEXURE – A9, A10, A11 PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATIONS O.A.NO.252 OF 2012.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner herein was working was a Loco Pilot/Passenger driver, South West Railways, Mysuru Division, Mysuru. The Medical Board found that the petitioner is unfit to act as a passenger driver. The petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntarily retirement with a condition that the department has to consider his son’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was rejected. Once again, he made a representation. The same was not considered. Hence, he filed O.A.No.252 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rather than considering the case of the petitioner and the applicability of the relevant Rules, the entire Scheme of voluntary retirement was set-aside by the Tribunal. Questioning the same, the petitioner– applicant has filed W.P.No.12048 of 2106. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said Application have filed W.P.No.301 of 2015 on the ground that the Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to quash the Scheme since it was neither pleaded by any of the parties nor was it within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to do so.
3. Heard learned counsels.
4. The plea of the petitioner was for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds for any suitable post. Rather than considering the case on merits, the Tribunal went on a tangent and made reference to the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS –vs- UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Subsequently it came to the conclusion that such kind of appointments deny opportunity to competitive, meritorious persons, therefore, the same amounts to a back door entry. Therefore, the Scheme is bad in law and the Scheme was quashed. We are indeed shocked by the manner in which the Tribunal has proceeded to pass its order. It was nobody’s case, viz., the applicant nor the Union of India with regard to the validity of the Scheme. The validity of the Scheme was never in question. What was to be decided is whether the applicant’s son was entitled to an appointment on compassionate grounds. Rather than considering that, the Tribunal has leaped forward and quashed the Scheme.
5. Thus, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. The order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation to set-aside the order impugned.
For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition No. 12048 of 2016 is allowed. The impugned order dated 13-8-2013 vide Annexure-A passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.252 of 2012 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
All the contentions are kept open.
W.P.No.301 of 2015 is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE ln.