ARVIND KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Headquarters Office of the respondent-department placed an indent for recruiting six Telephone Operators. Against this demand, five candidates were selected. THE applicant of this O.A. was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the merit list. At SI. No. 2 one Shri Ram Roop Meena and at the Sl. No. 3, Ku. Hemlata Mathur, were placed. Since the recruitment was against the combined requirement of different Divisions of the Western Railway, the candidates were asked to indicate their preferences of the Divisions where they would like to be posted. THE applicant, Arvind Kumar, indicated his options as Kota, Jaipur and Bikaner. Shri Ram Roop Meena had also given similar options while, Ku. Hemlata Mathur opted for Jaipur, Bikaner and Kota Divisions. Based on these preference, the applicant was directed to Kota Division for his posting while Ku. Hemlata Mathur was sent to Jaipur Division. THE papers in respect of the applicant were returned by the Kola Division on the plea that the vacancy of a Telephone Operator did not exist any more as the post in that cadre had been surrendered. This intimation was sent to the Headquarters in November 1992. In October 1992, Ku. Hemlata Mathur was given an appointment order in Jaipur Division. Ever since the applicant has been vigorously pursuing with the department to appoint him also since the person junior to him in the merit list i.e., Ku. Hemlata Mathur, has been appointed way back in 1992. Having not met with any success, he has come before us by filing this O.A. with a prayer that respondents be directed to appoint him on the post of Telephone Operator in any of the Divisions of the Western Railway; not preferably in Kota, Ajmer or Jaipur Divisions.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

(3.) IN pursuance of our directions, the learned Counsel for the respondents have produced before us the seniority list of the category of Telephone Operators of Rajkot Division. We had asked for seniority list of this category for both Rajkot and Jaipur Divisions. We find that respondents approach in this respect has been a matter of concern for us. IN respect of Jaipur Division, they have only produced seniority list dated 30th May, 1995 and the latest seniority list which could have also included the name of Ku. Hemlata Mathur, has not been brought to our notice. From a close examination of the seniority list of the cadre relating to Rajkot Division is concerned, we find that in the cadre of Telephone Operators Scale Rs. 3050-4590, the sanctioned strength in the cadre is three. We are not able to appreciate the arguments advanced by the respondents that Shri Ram Roop Meena was adjusted as there was a vacancy of Scheduled Tribe under the reservation roster. We are not able to understand how in a cadre of three one vacancy came to the share of Scheduled Tribes and nothing to the share of Scheduled Castes. IN fact, in a cadre of three vacancies, all posts in the roster applicable after 1995, have to be general posts at the stage of initial constitution of the cadre. This legal position has emerged consequent to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabhanval, 1995(2) SCC 745=1995(3) SLJ 227 (SC) and Virpal Singh Chauhan, 1995(6) SCC 684. INcidently, the respondents themselves have stated in their reply that the applicant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community and Shri Ram Roop Meena, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, have both been considered as General candidates because of their merit position. Having done that they have only taken care to accommodate Shri Ram Roop Meena who was below in the order of merit to the applicant, on the specious plea there was a vacancy for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. This create serious doubts about the way the case of the applicant has been handled by the respondents. He has been denied appointment, whereas, his juniors have been accommodated. The stand of the respondents that they could not accommodate the applicant in Rajkot Division, also after adjusting Shri Ram Roop Meena, is a statement made in order to mis-lead the Tribunal. We find from the seniority list dated 12.7.98/24.8.98 that even after appointing Shri Meena, two more persons; one Shri Ashok C and one Shri Bharat Joshi, were appointed on promotion on 25th May, 1996 and 11th June, 1997 respectively. Obviously, the respondents have treated the applicant unfairly.