- (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up tor final disposal today.
(2.) FOR filling up vacancies of teaching staff at ELTC/TATA. BSP and TPKR. options from eligible regular Elecl. Loco Rg. Supervisors. Elecl. mail/express drivers, passenger -drivers and goods drivers were invited. The posts in question were the deputation posts and the selected persons after completing the tenure were liable to be repatriated, The last date for receipt of the options was fixed as 10.6.1999. One of the predominant and primary conditions was that the optees should have at least three years experience. The relevant part of the Circular dated 17.5.1999 which had invited options, reads thus in so far as the cut -off date as fixed therein is concerned : "The option (sic) received as per format should be forwarded to this office by 10.06.99 in one lot (not in a piece - meal) and no option will be entertained after 10.6.99." The petitioner also exercised his option. A list of the eligible candidates was prepared vide Circular dated 6/10th. September. 1999 In which the name of 23 persons figured. The name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 17. The order was issued on 12.1.2000 posting four persons on tenure basis as Instructors in the pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10, 500/ -. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 4 of this promotion/posting/deputation order. The respondents challenged the petitioners selection on the only ground that as on 10.6.1999 (cut -oil date), he did not possess the requisite three years experience. On the factual aspect, this allegation is not denied or disputed. The petitioners case is that even though on 10.6.1999, he did not possess the requisite three years experience, he did possess the same at the time of consideration.
(3.) THE Tribunal, while dealing with the lack of requisite experience by the petitioner as on the cut -off date, observed as under ; "8. The office order dated 17th. May, 1999 (Annexure - A/1), inviting option from the candidates of feeder posts clearly spelt out that the candidates may have at least three years experience and also that the option so received as per format, should be forwarded to the respondents office by 10th June. 1999, in one lot and not in piece -meal and further, that no option will be entertained after 10th June. 1999. That being as such, the cut -off date was definitely 10th June. 1999. Further, it would be found that the candidates offering their options were named in the office order dated 6/10th September. 1999 (Annexure R/4), which clearly depicts that the respondent No. 5 (Sri P.N. Singh), was promoted as Goods Driver only on 17th July. 1996. Even this letter (Annexure -R/4) makes mention that the applicants, who had not yet completed three years service as Goods Driver had not been considered. If the experience of respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh, is counted from the date of his promotion te. 17th July. 1996. he definitely fell short of three years requisite experience on the post by a month. Even though the lack of experience was marginal on the cut -off date i.e. on 10th June. 1999, it was definitely required to be adhered to very strictly. Neither there was any scope left for relaxation, nor do we find that such relaxation was ever granted in the case of respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh. In this view of the matter, there was no option left with us than to declare the said respondent No. 5 as a candidate not fulfilling the eligibility criteria for selection/promotion to the post of Instructor. This would certainly lead to a conclusion that the promotion, as given to the respondent No. 5. Shri P.N. Singh, by the impugned office order was invalid and the same cannot be sustained in law. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to allow the instant O.A. and therefore, we do it as such, the impugned orders Annexures A/2 and A/5. so far it related to respondent No. 5, Shri P -N. Singh. are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the official respondents would consider the candidature of the applicants to fill in the vacancy of the post of instructor, vacated by the respondent No. 5 as per the screening test already held during the relevant period and also in accordance with law.";