G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE are six writ petitions filed by railway employees challenging the order dated 21 6 77 and 6th July, 1977 issued by the Western Railway By order dated 21-6-1977 provisional panel of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters in the pay scale of Rs, 455-700 issued on 19-11-1976 was cancelled.
(2.) THE petitioners and other persons who were included in that panel were reverted from the post of Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters from grade Rs 455-700 to the grade of Rs. 425-640, by order dated 6-7-77. Aggrieved from the cancellation of the panel and their reversion, all the six petitioners have filed these writ petitions on the ground that cancellation of the panel and their reversion were illegal. It will be convenient to mention the facts leading to the above cancellation. All the petitioners are railway employees and are working in the Western Railway. All these petitioners were working as Asst. Station Masters/ Station Masters in the grade of Rs 425-640 in the year 1976. Certain posts of the Assistant Station Masters and Station Masters were upgraded in the year 1976 and selections were required to be made on 42 posts from amongst the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters who were in the grade of Rs 425-640 On 27-8-1976, 162 persons were called for test and interview vide Annexure 2 and the petitioners happened to be amongst them. A Selection Committee was appointed and the selections were held on 19-11-76. Ultimately as a result of these selections a provisional panel for the promotions to the above 42 posts was made operative from 16-11-76 (Annexure 3) and the petitioners were included in this panel and were promoted as such. That as a result of this selection, the petitioners were put in the grade of Rs. 456-700 by order Annexure 4. That all these petitioners by virtue of the above promotion commenced working in the upgraded grade of Rs. 456-700 from 18-12-1976. After panel was approved, they were posted as such. However, while they were working in the above grade of Rs. 455-700 on account of the selections made it came to them as a surprise that an order was passed on 21-6-1977 cancelling the above panel. This order dated 21-6-77 (Annexure 5) was passed by Divisional Superintendent, Establishment, Jaipur. As a follow up action of this order, another order was passed on 6-7-1977 by which the petitioners were reverted from the upgraded posts and the grades as mentioned above. The respondent Railway in reply has filed Annexure R. 1 letter dated 9 6-77 addressed by Shri S. B. Lal to Mr. Narandra Singh, DPO, Jaipur in which the reasons for cancellation of the panel and review of the Selection Board proceedings have been given. This letter narrates two reasons only which are contained in para 2 and 3. The first reason given is that as there were 42 posts upgraded, only 96 persons should have been called, in addition to 21 schedule castes and 9 schedule tribes but instead of that 162 employees were called which was illegal, The second reason given was that senior employees having more than 60% marks in the record of service have not been selected on the ground that they got less marks in the professional ability test and their non selection was not justified. M/s Bhansali and Bafna appearing for the Western Railway tried to justify the order of cancellation of the panel and reversion on the above two grounds. Mr Bhansali also submitted that the Railway authorities have got ample powers under the Rules to cancel a panel and Rule 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual was cited in support of it. | Rule 216 (j), reads as under: "after the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of the candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and annoucement of the penal with the approval of the competent authority it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the penal. " Relying upon the above rule, it was argued that since there were procedural irregularities in calling more than three times of the number of employees for interview and the marking as mentioned in Ex R. 1, railway authorities were competent and were also justified in cancelling the panel.
(3.) MR. V. S. Dave on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the reasons given for cancellation of the panel are per se mis-conceived and untenable. According to the Railway Board circular, it is necessary that at the time of selection the Selection committee should, select 25%more of the vacancies in order to make provision for unforeseen contingencies. For this, MR. Dave relied upon Annexure R. 6 at page 87. In this letter MR. N. V. Somuel C P. O. , Western Railway Bombay, has written to the various Divisional Superintendents of Western Railway to add 25% for unforeseen contingencies while forming the panels. The exect direction is as under: "in forming panels, it may please been ensured that panels are sufficiently long so that they do not get exhausted quickly. You may add 25% for unforeseen contigencies. " It is interesting to note that in letter dated 9-6-77 (Annexure R. 1), Shri S. B. Lal, S. P. O. (T) has written to the DP O. Jaipur that the fresh selections should be made keeping in view the instructions in the G. P. O's D. O. letter dated 10-8-76, precisely the same as mentioned above Ex. R. 6 This makes it clear that the railway authorities were required to add 25% of the number of vacancies and as there were 42 vacancies, number of 11 was to be added to it for making provision for unforeseen contingencies. In this view of the matter the number of candidates called being 162 was not more than 3 times and the first ground for cancelling the panel is absolutely untenable. Mr. Bafna pointed out that this letter dated 9-6-77 is contrary to Ex. R. 10 letter dated 3-9-76. It is not possible for this Court to enter into a research as to how many circulars and orders were issued by the Railway Board from time to time during the interval of these two letters. All that can be said is that the Western Railway cannot be allowed to disown its own act. Similarly the respondents cannot be allowed to rely, upon para 1 of the letter dated 9-6-77 (Ex. R1) and disown the reference of the letter dated 9-6-77. This would be a game of hide and seek and to play hot and cold together, a device to approbate and reprobate which cannot be permitted in a court of law when we are dealing with the valuable rights of the Government employees, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The railway authorities should put their house in order and if they file the documents in court which are inconsistent and contradictory, they can do so at their own peril. The citizen cannot be allowed to suffer on that account. I am, therefore, of the view that the reason given for cancellation of panel in para No. 2 of the letter dated 9. 6. 77 is untenable both on facts and in law. ;