Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Ved Sheel Sharma and Ranjeet Singh have approached this Court by way of fling instant writ petition challenging judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench(for short 'the Tribunal') whereby original application fled by t he petitioners has been dismissed and further with the prayer that order dated 16.01.2008 dismissing the claim of the petitioners to prepare panel for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Grade -II through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination on merit basis be also quashed and set aside.
(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that Notification dated 31.03.2005 was issued by Respondent No. 2 to fill up 11 posts of Junior Engineer Grade -II in pay scale of Rs. 5000 -8000. Incumbents having qualification of Metric and experience of three years service on the post of Technician Grade -III and on higher post were eligible to compete in the selection known as Limited Departmental Competitive Examination against 25% quota fixed for said purpose. The petitioners, on being called, appeared for written test on 25.09.2005 and were declared successful in the result, which was notified on 21.11.2005. Names of successful candidates were arranged in the order of merit, in which a specific note was put that this w as not in the order of seniority. However, the respondents, subsequently, did not include names of the petitioners in the panel, which was prepared on the basis of seniority and not on merit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representation to the respondents which was dismissed. The petitioners then fled original application before the Tribunal, which vide judgment dated 04.12.2007 required the respondents to decide representation of the petitioners. The respondents vide order dated 16.01.2008 rejected representation of the petitioners on the ground that para 219(j) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual(for short 'IREM') provides for preparation of panel on the basis of seniority and the petitioners were not senior. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by fling another original application. The respondent -Railways however before the Tribunal relied on Railway Board's letter dated 26.11.1986 and letter dated 04.01.1996 for preparing panel in the order of seniority amongst those who had qualified the written examination. The Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2011 dismissed original application of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners.
(3.) Mr. Shailendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the procedure followed by the respondents in selection in question is based on Railway Board's letter dated 26.11.1986 was not correct and it was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15.03.1996 in M. Ramjayram v/s. General Manager, South Central Railway,, SLJ SC 1996 (1) page 536. The procedure laid down in para 219(j) of IREM relied by the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioners is confined to normal promotion and not for the promotion through selection in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Reliance has been placed on decision of this Court dated 10.02.2009 delivered in the cases of Shri Sadan Singh and Shri Shiv Singh(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 980/2009 and 982/2009) wherein it was held that para 219 of IREM can only be applied in the case of normal promotion, but not in selection known as Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to be conducted for promotion, where candidates from different departments and categories or seniority are called. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly recorded findings against the petitioners. It is argued that procedure adopted by the respondents for preparing the panel based on seniority was under challenge and claim of the petitioners should not have been dismissed on the ground that the instructions laid down in letter dated 08.10.2007, passed subsequent to the date of panel in question formed.;