C SOMASUNDARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts and the question of law involved in these cases are being similar and almost identical, the cases are being heard and disposed of by this common order. THE facts of the individual cases are stated briefly as follows:-

(2.) The applicants 1 and 2 are holding the post of Station Master Grade II substantively and officiating as Station Master Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 on ad hoc basis. The 2nd applicant is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. From the year 1994 onwards no selection was made for promotion to the post of Station Master Grade I. Although 12 vacancies were notified on 8.3.95, the applicants were also alerted for participating in the selection process the same was not further proceeded with and the vacancies were not filled up. Subsequently, a notification was issued on 18.2.99 (A-3) for selection to 52 vacancies of Station Master Grade I by alerting 139 eligible officials. The applicants were also among them. They participated in the written examination but in the list of persons found eligible for taking viva voca, having cleared the written test published on 5.4.2000 (A-5), the applicants names were not included. Therefore, the applicants have filed this application seeking to set aside A-3 and A-5, declaring that the entire process of selection is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, and for a direction to the respondents to conduct fresh selection on year wise basis, considering only those who who are eligible to be considered for the vacancies which arose from 1994 to 1999. It is alleged in the application that by clubbing of the vacancies, the applicants have been prejudiced, that the pre-promotional training given to the SC/ST prior to the holding of the examination was not sufficient as per rules, that the test being held in 7 different centres on 2 different dates were not uniform, that there had been a lot of malpractices and that the selection is therefore liable to be set aside as not having been done in accordance with rules. It has also been contended that the Selection Board was not properly constituted and that the question papers were neither set nor evaluated by officials as stipulated in the Railway Board's circular.

(3.) THE applicant holding a post of Station Master Grade II, substantively and officiating as Station Master Grade I on ad hoc basis, participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Station Master Grade I in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. He has filed this application challenging A5 panel notified on 24.4.2000 (A5) in which 49 persons have been shown as selected for appointment to the post of Station Master Grade as also A6 order by which as a consequence of regular selection, the applicant has been reverted to the substantive post of Station Master Grade II. It is alleged in the application that the selection process was vitiated that the committee was not properly constituted, that the question papers were neither set nor evaluated by officials as per rules, that the selection committee did not have two officials belonging to the same department, and that the panel is invalid and inoperative. THE applicant has also alleged that the A6 order is unsustainable.