- (1.) The petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated 29 April 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 126 of 2001 as also the order dated 03.06.2005 passed on the review application No. 26 of 2005. The petitioners had filed the Original Application for issuing direction to the respondents to consider their appointment and appoint them on Class IV post of Safaiwala, as they had been duly selected by the selection committee and pay them salary and allowances admissible for the post. They had also challenged the appointment of private respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondents had issued an advertisement for Class IV post in the month of September, 1996. The total posts of Safaiwala, which were notified, were 252, out of which 27 posts were meant for reserved category and remaining 225 posts were assigned for general category candidates. Pursuant to the said advertisement 401 candidates had appeared in the examination, out of whom 252 had been selected. The applicants have raised finger over the fairness of respondent No.5 being a member of the selection committee. It is stated that in the select list the applicant No.1 was placed at serial No. 133, applicant No.2 was placed at serial No. 219, applicant No.3 was placed at serial No. 156, applicant No.4 was placed at serial No. 155 and applicant No.5 was placed at serial No. 222. The names of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 did not appear in the select list dated 21.03.1997, whereas all of a sudden the applicants had come to know that the Divisional Railway Manager, respondent No.4 had issued a fresh select list on 22.10.1997 which contained the names of 212 candidates instead of 225 candidates. Thus the names of 13 persons enlisted in the select list dated 21.03.1997 had been ousted and the subsequent list was prepared only for 212 candidates. This list was not signed either by the Chairman or by other members, whereas only opposite party No.5 had signed it and sent to Divisional Railway Manager for issuing appointment orders. It was urged that respondent No.5 had no authority to prepare the revised list, thus the respondents had changed the select list arbitrarily without noticing to the candidates. Through the counter reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it was submitted that vide letter dated 17 October 1996 the applications were invited from candidates registered in employment offices and vide letter dated 23.10.1996 from the wards of Railway Employees and other Organizations. The last date of submission of application was 5th November 1996.
(3.) The learned Tribunal had observed that "it transpired that Divisional Railway Manager vide select list issued on 22.01.1997 declared pannel which contained the names of applicant, but subsequently when the selection committee's recommendations were sent to the competent authority(Divisional Railway Manager) it took a decision to cancel the candidature of those applicants whose applications were received after the last date of submission of applications, thereafter a fresh recommendations were sought through letter dated 22.10.1997, in pursuance thereof appointment have been made. It has been held that the applicants/petitioners had not submitted their application before 05.10.1996, therefore their names were not included in the select list. A bare perusal of the record shows that the selection committee had proceeded to make selection pursuant to the fresh recommendation dated 22.10.1997 after preparation of separate select list. Since the petitioner had not applied pursuant to subsequent notification there was no occasion to enlist his name in the select list.;