Ghasi Others Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 580
(20 October 1995)
K. (J) Venkataswami K. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) K.Venkataswami :
1995 SCALE (6)129
counsel on both sides.
appellants challenged orders of reversion dated 13.3.1989 issued by the
Divisional Personnel Officer, Adra, South Eastern Railway unsuccessfully before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
circumstances leading to the passing of the impugned reversion orders and
challenge thereto may now be noted.
appellants were working in the South Eastern Railway as Gangmen. Pursuant to a
scheme dated 24.8.1969 introduced by the Railway Board for direct Track
Maintenance for the purpose of improvement in the maintenance of Tracks, the
appellant applied for and were selected after written and viva voce tests and
posted on ad hoc basis on 18.10.1985 as D.T.M./Mate. Approximately after a
period of 13 months, the appellants were reverted at the end of 1986 to the
posts of Gangmen. The appellants did not challenge that reversion.
it is the specific case of the appellants that no suitable candidates were
available from regular promotional avenue for promotions and in view of the necessity
for appointment to the posts of permanent way Mistry, the Selection Board
constituted for the purpose of recommending/empanelling suitable candidates
recommended the names of the appellants. Accordingly, the names of the
appellants were included in the List issued by the Divisional personnel
officer, Adra by Memorandum dated 1.6.1989 for the said posts. While the
appellants were working as Permanent Way Mistries, all of a sudden without any
opportunity being given to them, the impugned orders of reversion came to be
appellants challenged the impugned orders of reversion by filing two O.As on
various grounds before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The
respondents while admitting the selection and inclusion of the appellants in
the panel for the appointment of permanent Way Mistries supported the orders of
reversion by filing a written statement before the Tribunal stating as follows
:- "I totally deny that neither there was a selection, nor there was any
selection proceedings therefor, nor was approval of competent authority
obtained for so-called empanelment in 1988. Certain officials of the Division mischeviously
and erroneously have enlisted these persons who were promoted on ad hoc basis
in the year 1985 and 1986 against work-charged post for the Direct Track
Maintenance as if they were empanelled afresh in 1988 without the approval of
the competent authority.
admitted that the applicants were erroneously promoted as P.W. Mistry were
posted against reqular posts. (Emphasis supplied) As aforesaid the promotion
itself was irregular and as a consequence the posting of the applicants against
regular posts was irregular by itself.
regular posting orders as notified 6.7.88, 13.7.88 and 12.10.88 are. Therefore,
liable to be cancelled.
state that the applicants are well aware that they have not appeared for any
selection test whatsoever for the formation of a panel of P.W. Mistry in the
year 1988 or near about that period. Having taken advantage of the erroneous
notification dated 1.6.88 of their alleged empanelment the petitioners are
attempting to avail of undue benefit of erroneous promotion." On the basis
of the above averments and counter averments, the Tribunal has dismissed the
appellants' applications by holding as follows :
are of the view that the applicants have been given the above appointment for
D.T.M. scheme after appearing for a proper selection test and after proper
(SIG) to allow them to continue working as much as long as the D.T.M. work in
the division continues. Therefore, the order of reversion which appears to have
been passed in the meantime, is vacated to the above extent. It is, however,
made clear that this promotion to the applicant is not in the regular channel
of promotion to the post of P.W. Mistry in terms of the relevant promotion
rules and the respondents are at liberty to give promotion to other eligible
persons to the post of P.W. Mistry in terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules,
the present applicants shall continue in their present posts as long as the
work for which they have been promoted and appointed continues. If in the
future the work is completed and the respondents think it fit to revert the
applicants to their original posts then they should be given a proper hearing
before taking such a measure." The Tribunal dismissed the two review
application filed by the appellants.
under these circumstances these appeals are filed by special leave.
counsel for the appellants and respondents argued respectively for allowing and
dismissing the appeals, we find that the Tribunal's order suffers from a
fundamental error in not appreciating correctly the contentions placed before
it. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Tribunal have to be set aside and
the matter has to be remanded for fresh disposal in the light of specific rival
pleadings, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made
the narration of facts as above, it will be noticed that the challenge before
the Tribunal was not against the first termination orders of the year 1986. The
appellants were aggrieved by the orders of termination issued on 13.3.1989. The
Tribunal, however, proceeded as if the appellants were promoted for a fixed
period and they can be continued as long as the D.T.M. work in the Adra
Division continues. This assumption on the part of the Tribunal is wrong as we
have seen earlier that the respondents have admitted that the appellants were
promote against the regular vacancies, but their stand was that they were
wrongly promoted by mistake committed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Adra.
The respondents went to the extent of stating that 'certain officials of the
Division mischeviously and erroneously have enlisted these persons who were
promoted on adhoc basis in the year 1985 and 1986 against work-charged post for
the Direct Track Maintenance as if they were empanelled afresh in 1988 without
the approval of the competent authority'.
the respondents have established the said fact or not has not been gone into by
the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are setting aside the orders of the
Tribunal under appeal by allowing the appeals and remitting the matters for
fresh disposal in the light of specific rival and also in the light of the
observations made hereinbefore. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no
order as to costs.