JOGENDRA PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this O. A., the applicant has assailed the order dated 30th July, 1996 (Annex. A/1) under which, a panel of the persons found suitable for promotion to the post of Goods Driver Grade 1350-2200has been issued. Applicant's name does not appear in this panel. His prayer is that the respondents be directed to declare him as duly selected and interpolate his name at the appropriate place in this panel.

(2.) The brief matrics of the case is that while the applicant was working as Assistant Driver, he had passed Promotional Training Course. Subsequently, vide order dated 25/ 26.7.1995 (Annex. A/2), he alongwith 40 others were promoted as Goods Driver on ad hoc basis. In this order, names of Shri Ram Chandra 'B' and Shri Nand Singh 'L' were not included. The applicant had also completed the training course at Kanpur and then high speed training course at Z.E.T.C., Baroda. Having successfully passed the training in these establishments, he worked as a Co-Driver in high speed trains. A regular selection for the post of Goods Driver scale Rs. 1350-2200 was initiated vide Notification dated 31.10.1995/ 1.11.1995 (Annex. A/6) for filling up 270 vacancies. The result of the written examination was declared on 12.7.1997 vide Annex. A/7, wherein, the name of the applicant also appeared amongst the successful candidate at SI. No. 46. The Viva Voce test was held in the month of July, 1996 and a panel was issued vide the impugned order dated 30.7.1996 in which the name of the applicant does not appear amongst the successful candidates.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. The respondents have also produced before us the proceedings of the impugned selection. WE had directed the respondents to place before us, copies of the C.R. Dossiers relating to the applicant as also Shri Ram Chandra 'B', however, they have failed to comply with this order and have only produced one copy of the C.R. in respect of Shri Ram Chandra 'B' for the year 1992-93. WE are constrained to observe that respondents have not displayed adequate deference to the orders of this Tribunal. WE have now to proceed and decide the case with the help of records made available in addition to the averments made in the O.A. and the reply of the respondents.