Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 389 (28 October 1999)
Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by theAppellant who was the applicant
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No. 263 of 1994. The Central Administrative
Tribunal (for short CAT) by its judgment and order dated March 17, 1997 dismissed the original application
filed by the Appellant holding that the same is devoid of any merits. It is
this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
dispute in this appeal relates to filling up of the vacancy of Office
Superintendent Grade II in the Guntupalli Workshop (Andhra Pradesh) Railways.
The notification dated 28.11.1990 was issued for filling up the said vacancy.
The roster points to be filled were 13 to 18.
common ground that 14th point in the roster was reserved for SC and 17th point
for ST. After following the procedure for selection, a provisional list of
empanelled candidates for the said posts was prepared and issued vide
notification dated 18.11.1991. The Appellant was at Sl. No.6. Vacancy at roster
point No. 14 was filled in by the SC candidate who was found suitable. But
however, the vacancy for ST at roster point No. 17 could not be filled, as the
said candidate was not available. It is the claim of the Appellant that since
the vacancy earmarked for the ST candidate remained vacant and he being the
next in the empanelled list, the vacancy should have been filled in by appointing
him. This claim was made on the footing that the concerned authority at Guntupalli
Workshop had recommended to the Railway Board that for want of ST candidate the
said vacancy be dereserved for general category. This recommendation was
although made sometime in 1991 but it remained pending till 1993 with the
Railway Board for its approval. In the mean time, restructuring of the cadre
took place vide Office Order No. 32 of 1993 issued on 1.3.1993 promoting
respondent No. 4 in that vacancy. The Appellant submitted the representation to
the higher authorities complaining that respondent No. 4 should not have been
appointed and in his place, his claim should have been considered. The
representation of the Appellant however, came to be rejected in view of the
restructuring of the cadre. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his
representation, the Appellant had filed the aforesaid OA before the CAT at Hyderabad.
is common ground that by virtue of restructuring of the cadre, the Appellant
could not have been appointed as claimed by him. Two contentions were raised
before CAT, Hyderabad :
That because of delay on the part of the Railway Board to dereserve the vacancy
earmarked for ST till 1993, he had lost the opportunity to be appointed against
the said vacancy. If the Railway Board were to dispose of the recommendation
earlier dereserving the said vacancy for general category, the Appellant, being
the next in the empanelled list, would have been appointed.
The post of Office Superintendent Grade II is controlled by Workshop whereas
the post of Office Superintendent Grade I is controlled by the Zonal Railway
Level. The Workshop Unit would not be in a position to assess the vacancies of
Office Superintendent Grade I and for that purpose, Zonal Railway Level ought
to have assessed the vacancies of Office Superintendent Grade I at the time
when the notification dated 28.11.90 was issued for filling vacancies of Office
Superintendent Grade II. Having not done so, a great injustice has been done to
him by not appointing him in the vacancy although he was empanelled at S.No. 6.
these contentions were negated by the CAT, Hyderabad in its order which is impugned in this Appeal.
L.N. Rao, the Learned Advocate appearing in support of this Appeal reiterated
the same contentions and urged that the view taken by the CAT, Hyderabad is erroneous and cannot be
sustained. While dealing with the first contention, he urged that if the
Railway Board were to take the decision expeditiously, the Appellant could have
been accommodated on such dereserved vacancy. He urged that there was no
impediment in taking the decision of dereservation and it was merely an
inaction on the part of the Railway Board which had deprived the Appellant
being appointed against the vacancy. We do not see any substance in this
contention because nothing has been pointed out to us from the record which
would justify this contention. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our
attention to the Rao & Ors. (1983) 3 SCC 284 and in particularly, he relied
upon paragraphs 4 and 9. We have gone through the Judgment and in our opinion,
the ratio thereof has no application.
a case dealing with delay in preparing panel for promotional cadre under the
then existing Rules which were substituted by new Rules. The panel was prepared
under the new Rules.
Coming to the second contention as regards restructuring of the cadre, it is
quite clear that the restructuring appears to have been made for the efficient
working in the Workshop Unit. We, therefore, do not see any substance in this
There is no substance in this Appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed but
however, parties are directed to bear their own costs.