(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. The petitioners have sought to challenge order dated 3rd August 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Original Application No.11 of 2010. The case of the petitioners before this Court and before the tribunal was that they had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement of the Railway Recruitment Cell and admittedly the advertisement was for filling posts in Group-D category. It was contended for the petitioners that they had applied for the post of 'Khalasi' in particular but no evidence was produced to show that they had applied only for the post of 'Khalasi' and not for other Group-D posts included in the advertisement. Upon being selected, the petitioners were informed in March 2007 that they were provisionally selected for the post of 'Khalasi' on Ahmedabad Division but that division was to separately send offer of appointment. It was clarified in such letters that intimation of selection for the post of Group-D did not confer any right to be appointed unless vacancies were available. Thereafter, they were duly appointed in April 2007 in Group-D on the pay scale prescribed for those posts falling within Group-D and such letters no where indicated that the petitioner concerned was appointed on a particular post with particular designation in Group-D category.
2. Under the above facts and circumstances, the allegation of the petitioners that designations were changed from 'Khalasi' to Cleaner had no basis and it was rightly rejected by the tribunal in the impugned order. Learned counsel, Mr.P.H.Pathak, however, vehemently argued that while the post of Cleaner was not advertised and the petitioners were selected for the posts in Group-D category, they could not legally have been appointed on any post other than 'Khalasi'. He relied upon recent decision of the Apex Court in Arup Das and Others v. State of Assam and Others [(2012) 5 SCC 559], which has no application in the facts of the present case as the number of vacancies and the number of appointments made is not the issue in the present case. Since it is clear from the advertisement relied upon by the petitioners themselves that the posts in Group-D included the post designated as three kinds of 'Khalasi', Platform Porter, Parcel Porter and Cleaners (Safaiwala) in the same pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 and no vested or legal right is established in favour of the petitioners to insist upon any particular designation or posting, the tribunal appears to have properly appreciated the facts and rightly rejected the application of the petitioners. Therefore, present petition is summarily dismissed.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (G.B.Shah, J.) *malek Top