- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The first writ petition W.P.(S) No. 4624 of 2016 is preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by part of the impugned order dated 27.05.2016 passed in O.A. No. 80 of 2013(R) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi, whereby the learned Tribunal has decided the first issue relating to computation of vacancies in the matter of filling up of 30% vacancies in Civil Engineering Department Group 'B' panel through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination against the petitioner. The issue related to computation of 05 vacancies under Notification dated 14.12.2009 wherein the petitioner alleged non-compliance of the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Nagaraj & Others Versus Union of India & Others, 2006 8 SCC 212 as also in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others, 2012 7 SCC 1. Learned Tribunal came to the opinion that the applicant having participated in the examination without challenging the notification and the results published thereafter, cannot assail the same after having failed. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, in support of challenge, made the following submissions :-
(3.) That in terms of Rule 208.3 of Chapter 2 Section 'A' relating to Promotion of Subordinate Staff under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, a candidate had the right to make a representation against his selection which should have been dealt on merits without restriction of any time limit for its submission. He further contends that in terms of the Railway Establishment Manual, Notification of such advertisement should have been communicated to the intending candidates which has not been done. Petitioner therefore participated ignorantly of the true legal position, so far as computation of vacancies in such exercise is concerned. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and others versus Shakti Raj and others, 1997 9 SCC 527 Para 16 thereof in support of the contention that the selection exercise can always be questioned in case it is affected with glaring irregularities. Therefore, the principle of estoppel, conduct or acquiescence has no application to the present facts of the case as well.;