OP(CAT).245/2019 & OP(CAT).278/2019

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941** ## **O.P (CAT).No.245 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00939/2017 DATED 19-07-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **PETITIONERS/ APPLICANTS 1, 2, 4 TO 16, 18, 20 T0 25, 27, 29 TO 31 & 33 IN OA:** - **1 ATHIRA.S., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. M. SANAL KUMAR, KEEZHKODUMELE VEEDU, PADAPPUTHOTTAM, ANAVOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT 695 124.** - **2 SUJATHA.V.S, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. BALRAJ.V., BHAGYANIVAS, MUTHUVILA P.O., KALLARA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT 695 610.** - **3 ANIL. N.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.K.K. SUKUMARAN, NIRAVATH HOUSE, MANARCAD P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 019.** - **4 ABHAYADEV.S., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SURENDRAN.S., THOPPIL VEEDU, MUTHUVILA P.O., KALLARA, TRIVANDRUM 695 610.** - **5 VIJAYAN.P., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN P.(LATE), PODUVAN HOUSE, KANNADIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 604.** - **6 MANJU.V., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. ANOOP T., THULASI ULIYAKOVIL NAGAR 67-H ULIYAKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM 691 019.** - **7 PARVATHY.P., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. PRAVEEN.C.P. PRASEETHA CHERIKONAM, KANNANALLOOR P.O. KOLLAM 691 576.** - **8 ANU.C., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRA BABU, VILAYIL VEEDU, KAMMALAKUNNU, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKEEHU, TRIVANDRUM 695 304.** **- 2 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - **9 JIJIN.G., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN.K., KOLLENKODEN HOUSE, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALAKKAD 678 531.** - **10 PRADEEP.P., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, ANATHAMKODE HOUSE, TATHAMANGALAM P.O., PALAKKAD 678 102.** - **11 VINEETHA.E.V., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. PRADEEP KUMAR.R. DEEPTHAM, PANAMTHODI HOUSE, UPASANA NAGAR, PIRAYIRI P.O., PALAKKAD 678 004.** - **12 SREEKANTH.P.N., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, PANDARAPATTATHIL, VELUTHULIY COLONY, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 537.** - **13 SANEESH BABU.T., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. BABU.T.D., THIRUNELLIPARAMBU, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 534.** - **14 NISHA BABU, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SEBASTIAN P.J., PALLIPARAMBIL, NEAR MUTTUNKAL, ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA 688 530.** - **15 ASIDA.J., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH K.S., MADHAVAPURATH , KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 544 17.** - **16 VINEETHA PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ANILKUMAR C.P. , KATTUMPURATH HOUSE, THEVARA, KOCHI 682 013.** - **17 JACOB SAM., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.J JOSEPH, KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, XIV/1104, NAZARETH, KOCHI 682 002.** - **18 JIJESH.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. K.V. JANARDHANAN, AMRUTHAM HOUSE, VENGAT, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARGOD KERALA 671 313.** - **19 ANOOP.T.S., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN T.N., SREEJITH NILAYAM, PUTHENKAVU, THIRUMALABHAGOM P.O., THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 540.** - **20 JINEESHA.E.S., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. BIJIN.K.S. EDAKKATTT HOUSE, CHERAI P.O., ERNAKULAM 683 514.** - **21 DINESH.K., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN.K., NANDANAM HOUSE, AMBALATHAZHAM, PERUMANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 019.** **- 3 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - **22 JOICY.P.J., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. JEEJO C.D., C-10, GALAXY WINGATE, ARYAPADAM LANE, L.F.C. ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.** - **23 MUNEER.P., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, PADIKKAL HOUSE, KALATHINKADAVU, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 329.** - **24 RAMYA.S., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. ASHMON.P.S., PULIKKAPARAMBIL, PACHALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 012.** - **25 RIYAS.N., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. NIJAVUDEEN, NANDANKIZHAYA, ANAMARI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 506.** - **26 BYJU.C., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. C.P. NARAYANAN, ALAPPETTY HOUSE, KUTTIATTOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 602.** - **27 RAJANI.T., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SATHEESH.K. KOYIVILAPURATHU VEEDU, MURUNTHAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM 691 601.** **BY ADVS. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM SMT.A.A.SHIBI** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & APPLICANTS 3, 17, 19, 26, 27 & 32 IN OA:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI 600 003.** - **2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/RECRUITMENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY/RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL NO. 5, DR. P.V. CHERIAN CRESECENT ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600 003.** - **3 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, P.O., CHENNAI 600 003.** - **4 THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.** **- 4 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - ***5 SARANYA L.K., AGED 24 YEARS, W/O. SOORAJ S.S., SARANYA BHAVAN, KURAKODE, PERUMKADAVILA P.O., NEYYATTINAKRA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.(DELETED)** - ***6 ASWARAJ.P.M., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. MOHANA PAI.V., PALLITHOTTUNGAL, THYCATTUSSERY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688 528. (DELETED)** - ***7 VINOD.S.G., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SUBBAYYAN, SREENANDANAM, NEELIKUNNIL, KOLIYACODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 607.(DELETED).** - ***8 SANDEEP.T., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN.T., THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, NEAR UNITED CLUB, KOVILAKATHU MURI, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 329.(DELETED)** - ***9 VIJEESH.M., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE MURUGAN, THOTTIPADAM HOUSE, VATTEKKADU P.O., KOLLENKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 506.(DELETED).** - ***10 PREETHA OMANA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. MANILAL, MANPUZHA VADAKKETHIL, PRAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM 691 602.(DELETED).** - ***(RESPONDENTS NOS 5 TO10 RE DELETED FROMTHE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DTD 25/10/2019 IN IA NO.1 OF 2019 IN OP(CAT) NO.245/2019).** **R1-R4 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL, RAILWAYS.** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).278/2019, THE COURT ON 11-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 5 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941** **O.P (CAT).No.278 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.180/00179/2018 DATED 19-07-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/S:** - **1 SANGEETHA M., AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.MANICKAN M., W/O.MURUGHAN K., THAMARAKULAM, VILAYODI P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 103, PHONE 9447971567.** - **2 BINCHUSHA P.CHANDRAN, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAKUMAR, LALY BHAVANAM, EDEYAM, EDEYAM P.O., VALAKOM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISSTRICT, PIN - 691 545, PH. 9567616125.** - **3 MAYA V., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.BABU PILLAI C., KEERTHANA BHAVAN, KANDACHIRA, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 601, PHONE 9544536647.** - **4 AKHILA PRASAD L., AGED 26 YEARS D/O.R.SIVA PRASAD, RATHEESH BHAVAN, PALLAPPIL, PRAKKULAM P.O., PIN - 691 602, PHONE 8129275824.** - **5 KUMARI SARITHA I.S., D/O.K.SASIDHARAN, R.S.BHAVAN, ADUMANCODE, PARSUVAIKAL P.O., PIN- 695 508, PHONE 9567553055.** - **6 FATHIMA P., AGED 36 YEARS D/O.AHAMMED P., DILBER MANZIL, MAIDANATH PARAMBA, P.O.KOMMARI, CALICUT - 673007.** - **7 BEENA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.SANMUGHAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, MADAMPARA, KUNISSERY P.O., PIN - 678 681, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PHONE 9544452087.** **- 6 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - **8 SURENDARIDEVI C., AGED 36 YEARS D/O.CHANDRAN K., W/O.RAGHU, PULUMBANKAD HOUSE, KUNISSERRY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 681, PHONE 9526977232.** - **9 SAMEENA S., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.T.B.SHOWKKATHALI, BISMI HOUSE, MADAMARA, KUNISSERY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 681, PHONE 9074242157.** - **10 GIREESH K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VELLANKUTTY, KUDILATTU HOUSE, PARANNUR P.O., NARIKKUNI VIA., PIN- 673 585, PHONE 9947758325.** - **11 ASYA A., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, MANNARAYIL HOUSE ARIVALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 312, PHONE 8086225794.** - **12 SUDHEER V., S/O.YOOSUF KUNJU, KANNIMMEL VEEDU, 12 MURI NAGAR-14, THATTANAT P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 020.** - **13 SHEEJA K., D/O.KUMARAN, W/O.MANIKANDAN K., VADAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VILAYODI P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 103.** - **14 ASHARAF A., S/O.ABDUL JABBAR, CHUTTICHIRA HOUSE, NENMENI POST, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 506.** - **15 SHABU T., S/O.THULASEEDHARAN R., T.L.MANDIRAM, CHAKKAKADU, VELLUMANNADI P.O., VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 607.** - **16 SREEKUMAR S.S., S/O.G.SUKUMARAN, SREEPRASAD, THATHIYOOR, ARUVIKKARA, MARAYAMUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 124, PHONE 9526672621.** - **17 DHANESH M., S/O.MANIKKAN, KUNDILIDUVU HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYAD POST, PALAKKAD - 678 510.** - **18 NISHA R., W/O.RAMESH, PILAPPULLY HOUSE, VERKOLI P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 552, PHONE 9747617427.** - **19 JAYASREE A., W/O.SURESH K., PADATH HOUSE, AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 008, PHONE 9744693774.** **- 7 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - **20 SINDHU M., W/O.AJAYAN K., SIVAGANGA, NEAR KRISHI OFFICE, VELLANADU P.O., PIN - 695 543.** - **21 SMINU P.R., W/O.PRAVEEN V.PRAKASH, PONGALAYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 307.** - **22 CHITHRA CHANDRAN C.L., W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN PILLAI, KRISHNA MANAPPALLY P.O., N.E.THAZHAVA, KARUNGARAPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 574.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.S.SARAT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 003.** - **2 THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER/RECRUITMENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, NO.5, DR.P.V.CHERIAN CRESCENT ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008.** - **3 THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI - 600 003.** - **4 THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. R1-R4 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL, RAILWAYS** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).245/2019, THE COURT ON 11-02-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 8 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **==> picture [322 x 71] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** **K.Vinod Chandran,J.** **Two Original Petitions arise from a common order of the Tribunal and is with respect to the claim of the applicants to be included in a waiting list. The waiting list has to be prepared by calling 20% candidates over and above the number of vacancies, as was done in the earlier years. This is asserted to be in accordance with a Circular issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India. The prayer is in the hope of inclusion in the waiting list, so as to be appointed in the non-joining vacancies of the original rank list.** **2. In the earlier years admittedly there was a list prepared of candidates, from those called for document verification at 20% over and above the vacancies notified. Appointment orders were issued in accordance with the rank list and also following the roster of reservation, after which if there are any vacancies in which the candidates do not join, orders were issued for appointment of persons remaining in the list. There were a batch of cases filed seeking appointment to the general vacancies by persons who** **- 9 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **were not appointed, despite their document verification having been successfully completed. The Tribunal having declined the prayer, they were before this Court which Original Petitions [O.P.(CAT) Nos.67, 78 & 80 of 2015 dated 09.03.2016] were disposed of by Annexure A11 judgment produced in O.P (CAT) No.278 of 2019. There the applicants/petitioners were all reserved candidates of Other Backward Classes (OBC), who qualified by reason only of the relaxation of 10%, offered to the OBC candidates in the written test. It was categorically held that the reserved candidates who found a place in the list only because of the relaxation granted, could not aspire for consideration in the general vacancies even if they remained as non-joining vacancies. The aforesaid declaration of law is in tandem with the declaration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v**_ **.** _**Gujarat Public Service Commission**_ **[** _**(2019) 7 SCC 383**_ **]. However, the Division Bench by Annexure A11 directed the Railways to publish separate lists of the reserved candidates.** **3. A subsequent litigation has now culminated in this Court directing the applicants in the OA, remaining in the waiting list, to be advised for appointment to the** **- 10 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **non-joining vacancies in the reserved posts of OBC, provided they come within the rank, equal to the number of vacancies. Here the applicants are persons from the general and reserved category who aspire to be included in the waiting list for appointment to the non-joining vacancies in both the general and reserved categories. Their aspirations were frustrated only due to change in policy of the Railways to call candidates for document verification equal to the number of vacancies notified.** **4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P.(CAT) No.278 of 2019 Sri.Sarat R.S. takes us first through the notification produced at Annexure A1 to contend that there were 5450 vacancies notified, with provision for enhancement if fresh vacancies arise. More than double the vacancies were available for filling up from the instant selection. It is asserted that the Railways have been following the guidelines issued by the Government of India as per Annexure A9 dated 17.06.2008, calling for candidates to the extent of 20% over and above the number of vacancies. It is argued that modification made as per Annexure A10 dated 10.01.2014 was later to Annexure A1 notification and applies only prospectively. Annexure A10, in any event cannot be applied to the subject selection,** **- 11 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **since it came after Annexure A1 notification was published. 5. Reliance is placed on** _**Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2008 SC 1657**_ **] and** _**Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51**_ **] to advance the contention that there could be no change made to the selection criteria after the procedure has commenced. As to the rights of a person who finds a place in the waiting list,** _**Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591**_ **] was relied on. The learned Counsel also asserts on the basis of the reply affidavit filed by the respondent that actually the respondents have called for candidates more than the vacancies. The respondents have specifically stated in the reply that 1463 additional candidates were called for document verification; which, it is submitted, could have been done only if they had the authority to call for candidates in excess of the vacancies notified.** **6. Smt.Shibi.A.A., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in O.P(CAT) No.245 of 2019 adopts the arguments addressed by the other Counsel and adds that in fact, other Regional Recruitment Cells had called for 20% excess candidates, as is seen from Annexures A30 to A32. Annexure A30, it is submitted, is in the same year in which** **- 12 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **the subject notification was brought out, i.e., in 2013. The learned Counsel would also refer to Annexure A29 to contend that enhancement or reduction of vacancies can only be with the consent of the Railway Board. While the original notified vacancies were more than 5000, it was enhanced to almost 13000-odd and then reduced to 12000-odd. The reduction of such vacancies from about 13000 to 12000 was not in accordance with Annexure A29 and by all means, the Railways should be directed to appoint candidates from the select list to those vacancies.** ## **7. Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel** **for the respondent-Railways seeks to sustain the order of the Tribunal. It is pointed out that there were about 17 lakh applications to a little above 12000 vacancies and it is a herculean exercise carried out by the Railways, which cannot be interfered with on technicalities. At the outset it is submitted that Annexures A30 to A32 notifications are not in accordance with norms and such an illegality cannot be directed by this Court. The instructions of the Ministry of Railways is very clear insofar as 1:1 is the ratio in which candidates are to be called for the interview. 1463 candidates called in excess was only to satisfy the 1:1 ratio. It is pointed out from the reply affidavit itself** **- 13 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **that out of 11897 non-PWD (persons with disabilities) candidates, the candidature of 1463 were rejected on document verification and hence it is to have candidates equal to the vacancies that 1463 additional candidates called for. It is pointed out that the marks obtained by the candidates now included in the select list is more than the applicants, as has been clearly detailed in the reply. Sri.Radhakrishnan specifically argues that there was no change in the selection criteria carried out by the Railways after the notification was issued. There was only a change in policy insofar as the Railways having decided to discontinue the practise of calling candidates, over and above the vacancies notified or available. This is only to ensure that un-meritorious candidates are weeded out and only those who have certain amount of merit are included, especially when more than 12000 vacancies are being filled up.** **8. There is no unequivocal concept, it is urged, of non-joining vacancies being filled up from the very same select list after 1:1 ratio has been introduced. This is also to ensure that such vacancies are filled up by meritorious candidates in the next selection. The change in policy of drawing up the select list does not alter the** **- 14 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **selection criteria and the cited decisions are not applicable. The learned Counsel would rely on** _**Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of M.P. [(2013) 11 SCC 87**_ **].** **9. On admitted facts, Annexure A1 is the notification which indicated 5450 vacancies in Group-D to be filled up. The notification itself provided that the vacancy position would be enhanced and what is notified is only provisional. By the time the select list was drawn up, the Southern Railways had 12265 vacancies to be filled up of Group-D. Of this, non-PWD vacancies were 11897 and 368 PWD vacancies were filled up from the select list.** **10. We shall first deal with the argument that** **there was a reduction of vacancy in the course of selection procedure from more than 13000 to little more than 12000. Annexure A29 produced in O.A.939 of 2017 from which O.P(CAT) No.240 of 2019 arises, deals with modification of indents with respect to vacancies for which recruitment is conducted annually by issue of notifications. The modifications made are seen as clauses (a) to (d). Clause (a) speaks of revised indents being placed with the personal approval of General Manager of the Railway concerned, where the requirement is for enhancement of vacancies to the extent of 50% or below of the notified** **- 15 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **vacancies. As per clause (b), if enhancement or reduction has to be made above 50% of the notified vacancies, then specific approval of the Board is required. Reduction or cancellation of indent will also have to be obtained from the Board, as stipulated in clause (c). First of all, the argument is that reduction is made from the enhanced 13000 and odd to 12000 and odd, which is not above 50% of the notified vacancies, which comes to 5450. Pertinent also is the fact that the reduction or an enhancement is related to the notified vacancies and in the present case admittedly the available vacancies were far above the notified vacancies itself, in fact more than 100%. We do not find any reason to accept the ground so raised by the petitioners.** **11. The further contention is with respect to 1463 additional candidates having been appointed, for which the Recruitment Cell would not have the power; but for the provision for creating a wait list. We specifically notice the statements made in the reply of the Board, produced at Exhibit P3 in O.P(CAT) No.278 of 2019. In publishing the merit list as per the order of merit, 11897 non-PWD candidates were called for document verification; the balance being the vacancies conceded to PWD. The procedure** **- 16 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **for selection comprises of written test, physical efficiency test, document verification and medical examination. The candidates are ranked in accordance with their performance in the written test and after completion of the physical efficiency test, candidates are called for document verification in accordance with merit and also subjected to medical examination. The applicants herein are persons who qualified in the written test and also in the physical efficiency test; but, however, they were not called for document verification, since as per the rank position they were in excess of the vacancies available. 11897 candidates from the merit list were called for document verification, equal to the vacancies available for non-PWD candidates. After document verification and medical examination, candidature of 1463 persons were rejected for various reasons. Hence, to comply with the ratio of 1:1, i.e., calling number of candidates equal to the number of vacancies, 1463 candidates were also additionally called for. We do not think that 1463 candidates were called by reference to the earlier stipulation of calling candidates in excess of the notified vacancies. Obviously the petitioners did not figure within those additional ranks. We reject the said contention also.** **- 17 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **12. Then it is argued that the change in procedure as brought out by the Government of India, tantamount to changing the rules of the game midway. Admittedly the earlier Rules as available at Annexure A9 dated 17.06.2008 [produced in O.P.(CAT) 278 of 2019] required candidates 20% over and above the number of vacancies to be called at the time of document verification. Even at that point, as is evidenced from Annexure A9 para 4(ii), if the number of successful candidates after document verification exceeds the number of vacancies, the panel finalized by the Railway Recruitment Cell shall be equal to the number of vacancies only. However, there was a provision insofar as the non-joining vacancies being filled up from a panel prepared of equal number of candidates not turning up for taking appointment. It is for this purpose that candidates were called, in excess of 20% of the vacancies. The above system was done away with by Annexure A10 dated 10.01.2014.** **13. It was categorically stated in Annexure A10 that no replacement panels are to be provided against non-joining of selected candidates. The reason stated is also that the recruitment is done annually in terms of instructions contained in Board's letter dated 08.12.2011. Hence, the preparation of a substitute panel for filling up** **- 18 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **or for replacement of candidates in the non-joining vacancies was done away with by the Railways. Whether this is a change in rule made mid-way to the selection process is the vexed question. We will first look at the decisions relied on by the petitioners.** **14.** _**Maharashtra SRTC**_ **invited applications for the post of Drivers and Conductors. Ten persons who qualified in the driving test and the personal interview, approached the Court against the denial of their appointment for reason of the Section Committee having awarded 25 marks arbitrarily, thus diminishing the significance of the driving test. There were no statutory rules or regulations governing the selection; which were governed by orders issued as Circulars. While the earlier decision of the Board under the directions of the State Government was to conduct a driving test with 87.5% marks and personal interview having marks of 12.5%, there was a change brought in by a Circular issued after the selection commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that though the Circular as such is not illegal or arbitrary, it could not have been applied to the selections for reason of it having been issued after the last date of application in the instant selection and there being no written test prescribed in the** **- 19 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **subject selection. The rules of the game as has been specifically referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are** **“** _**the criteria for selection”**_ **which** _**“cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced**_ **”.** **15.** _**Madan Mohan Sharma**_ **was a case in which the eligibility criteria was changed and the date of submission of application in pursuance of advertisement was extended. It was held that a selection should be proceeded with only on the criteria which has been laid down at the time of advertisement and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria made subsequently. We bow to the above declaration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; but the decisions have no application in the present case. No selection criteria or eligibility conditions were changed after the notification was published. It is true that at the time of notification the policy of the Railways was to prepare a panel of candidates in excess of the number of vacancies notified to ensure that all the vacancies are filled up in the said selection itself. No applicant under a notification at the time of its publication could have aspired to be in the waiting list for consideration to the non-joining vacancies. The provision for calling of candidates above** **- 20 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **20% of the available vacancies is not a stipulation for selection nor does it in any manner affect the eligibility or selection criteria. The policy earlier was to prepare a replacement panel, which has been done away with especially since recruitment is decided to be carried on annually.** **16. In this context, we queried as to whether the selections are now made annually. The learned Standing Counsel Sri.S.Radhakrishnan would point out that the Southern Railways operates in the entire State of Kerala and parts of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. When the instant selection was proceeded with, there were cases filed in the Tribunals at Ernakulam, Chennai and Bangalore. This had resulted in the selections being dragged on, which also eventually went to the benefit of the applicants insofar as the vacancies to which appointments were made were more than double the vacancies notified. If the selection was carried out annually as had been proposed, then half of the candidates already appointed would not have been selected for appointment in the subject selection. Only because of the pending litigation in the various Tribunals and Courts the next selection was scheduled much later and the vacancies which arose in the course of time were also filled up from the selection notified in the year 2013. The** **- 21 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **decision to carry out selections annually was also to ensure selection of meritorious candidates and to enable those candidates who would be qualified in future also to apply, thus spreading the employment opportunities in every year to the young who qualify later.** **17. The petitioners submit that the selection is after all to Group D posts and there is no relevance for merit. We cannot out observe that such a submission is fallacious for the reason only of more than 11 lakh applications having been received for a mere 5,450 notified vacancies. We desist from looking at the qualifications of the applicants, since the eligibility is minimum secondary pass or ITI, without any restriction for persons with higher qualification to apply. The percentage of applications against notified vacancies, to a Group D post, to say the least is mind boggling. Selections, in the wake of literal explosion of the number of eligible candidates, is a process of elimination.** **18.** _**Gujarat State Dy.XEN Association**_ **was a case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the directions of the High Court to appoint direct recruits from a waiting list for the subsequent years also till a new rank list was published. In fact, the said decision would support the** **- 22 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** ## **stand of the Railways and we extract paragraphs 8 and 9:** **“8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected** **- 23 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons.** **9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates** **- 24 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service”.** **19. What emanates from the above extracted paragraphs is that the preparation of a waiting list is the prerogative of the appointing authority and its nature and mode of operation should be governed by rules. The right of a candidate in the waiting list to be appointed to a vacancy where the originally advised candidate does not take up the appointment or resigns, is only when there is a waiting list prepared and its operation is governed by rules. It was also categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the waiting list, in a selection does** **- 25 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **not provide a perennial source of recruitment. It was noticed that the preparation of a waiting list often is to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer for reason of sufficient candidates not being available for appointment. The decision to provide for the operation of a waiting list, in such contingency, was found to be the policy decision of the Government in extreme exigency. There is no such extreme exigency here since the selection proposed of about 5000 candidates, having extended over the years, resulted eventually in the selection of more than 12000 persons.** **20. It was also further held by the Hon'ble** **Supreme Court:** **"We can appreciate the anxiety of the High Court that if examinations are not held regularly as has happened between 1983 to 1993 it may result in depriving fresh candidates from being selected and their post may be filled by promotees. But such concern could not result in nullifying entire procedure. The better course would have been to direct the Government to work out the vacancies and fill them by holding an examination, if necessary, in addition to the examination already held. But the procedure adopted by the High Court, of giving such vacancies to candidates who were in the waiting list does not appear to be correct. There** **- 26 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **was no contingency nor the State Government had taken any decision to fill the vacancies from the waiting list as it was not possible for it to hold the examination nor any emergent situation had arisen except the claim of some of the candidates from the waiting list that they should be given appointment for vacancies which arose between 1980 and 1983 and between 1983 and 1993. Such claim of the appellants who had appeared in a particular examination and were placed in the waiting list could not be sustained. In fact, the action of the State Government in not sending the requisition every year or at the most every second year to the Commission for holding an examination for vacancies which had arisen or were likely to arise was liable to be commented upon and the State Government should have been directed to take care in future that the examinations are held regularly. But in no case the vacancies arising in future should have been offered to the candidates in the waiting list of the earlier year”.** **21. In the present case, there is no waiting list prepared, since the Railways had, as a matter of policy, decided only to invite candidates equal to the number of vacancies. There is no right for the candidates appearing in a selection to seek for the drawing up of a waiting list, which is solely for the reason of the candidate having failed to figure higher up in the merit, to be** **- 27 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **appointed to the available vacancy. Whether the non-joining vacancy should be conceded to the next recruitment year or from a waiting list prepared, is the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. A candidate appearing in a selection has no vested right to be considered to such non-joining vacancies, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even a candidate coming higher up in merit list has no vested right to be appointed to a vacancy.** **22. We have already held that the criteria of selection which the Hon'ble Supreme Court termed as 'the rules of the game' have not been changed after the notification was issued. The change effected was only in the policy of preparation of a replacement panel, which has been done away with. The petitioners herein have no vested right much less a right to claim for preparation of a waiting list in the hope that they may figure in the said waiting list. The decision of the authority not to fill up the non-joining vacancies from the very same selection; especially considering the enormity of the recruitment made, revealed by the sheer number of vacancies filled up, as also the spread over years in which such selection continued, according to us, justifies the decision not to** **- 28 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **have a replacement panel to fill up the non-joining vacancies. We are of the opinion that the Original Petitions are devoid of merit and we affirm the order of the Tribunal.** **Original Petitions (CAT) are dismissed, with no order on costs.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **vku/-** **- 29 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 245/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 180/00939/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT P1 A1** **TRUE COPY OF EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. RRC 02/2013 DATED 21.9.2013.** **EXHIBIT P1 A2 TRUE COPY OF HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SARANYA L.K.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A3 TRUE COPY OF CHART SHOWING THE ROLL NUMBERS OF EACH OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND OTHER DETAILS.** **EXHIBIT P1 A4 TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED LIST OF DIFFERENT PANELS UPLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A5 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING NO. RBE NO. 121/2005 DATED 18.7.2005.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A6 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING NO. RBE NO. 166/2005 DATED 29.9.2005.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A7 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 10.5.2017 FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE RTI ACT ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLIES RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P1 A7** - **EXHIBIT P1 A8A TRUE COPIES OF MORE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A9 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 73/2008 DATED 17.6.2008 PRODUCED AS 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 175/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P1 A10 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO. 6/2014 DATED 10.1.2014 PRODUCED AS 4TH RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 175/2014.** **EXHIBIT P1 A11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. CAT NO. 78/2015 DATED 9.3.2016 RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT.** **- 30 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** ## **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF M.A. NO. 145/2018 DATED 4.2.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A12 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER RBE NO. 150/2017 BEARING NO. E (NG)-II/2007/RC4/CORE/1 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR ESTT. (N) -II, RAILWAY BOARD DATED 16TH OCTOBER, 2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A13 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO. V/P.721/SWLI/RE-ENGAGEMENT DATED 27 NOVEMBER 2017, ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER ON BEHALF OF DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. T/P. 269/1/EA/RE-EMPLOYMENT DATED 3.11.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. P/721/REEMPLOYMENT DATED 10.11.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER RBE NO. 193/2017 BEARING NO. E (NG)-II/2007/RC-4/CORE/1 DATED 12.12.2017 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR ESTT. (N)-II RAILWAY BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A17 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE RTI REQUEST FORM NUMBERED S RSLD/R/2017 SENT TO SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM DIVISION.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER/SALEM BERING NO. SA/P PG/RTI/2017/370 SRSLR/R/2017/50035 DATED 10.1.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE RTI REQUEST FORM NUMBERED SRPKD/R/2017 SENT TO SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A20 TRUE COPY OF REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER/PGT AND P10/P BEARING NO. J/P.PG/RTI/2017-18/203 DATED 30.11.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE M.A. DATED 22.2.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 939/2017.** **- 31 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** - **EXHIBIT P4 R1 TRUE EXTRACT OF MANUAL FOR RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARDS 2007.** - **EXHIBIT P4 R2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENHANCED 12,000 VACANCIES (CATEGORY WISE/ COMMUNITY WISE) OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY.** - **EXHIBIT P4 R3 TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT INDICTING THAT THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION RESULTS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ON 4.1.2015 AND INDICATING THE DATES FOR PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST (PET).** - **EXHIBIT P4 R4 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARDS ORDER BEARING NO. RBE 138/2014 DATED 10.12.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P4 R5 TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT INDICTING THAT THE SHORTLISTED CANDIDATE CAN CHECK THE SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFICATION IN THE WEBSITE OF RRC.** - **EXHIBIT P4 R6 TRUE COPY OF FINAL PANEL FOR EMPANELLED CANDIDATES DATED 6.7.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 R7 TRUE COPY OF SPECIMEN COPY OF THE LETTER OFFERING APPOINTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF M.A. NO. 390/2018 IN THE ABOVE O.A. DATED 20.3.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A21 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING NO. E (NG)-II/2009/RR-1/10/PT (7525) RBE NO. 103/2014 DATED 19.9.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A22 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING NO. E. (NG)-II/2009/RR-1/10/PT (7525) RBE NO. 62/2015 DATED 12.6.2015.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A23 TRUE COPY OF CENTRALIZED EMPLOYMENT NOTICE BEARING (CEN) NO. 02/2018 DATED 10.2.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 13.5.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A24 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO. P (RT) 563/RRC/GR.D./2014-15 DATED 6.10.2014, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A25 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO. E (NG)11/2013/RR-1/12 DATED 20.10.2014, ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD.** **- 32 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A26**|**TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING**| |---|---|---| |||**RBE NO. 138/2014 DATED 10.12.2014.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**||**TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL**| |||**REPLY STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE**| |||**RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 939/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**R8 1**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. P (RT)**| |||**563/RRC/GR.D/2014-15 DATED 11.12.2014**| |||**ADDRESSED TO RAILWAY BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**R8 2**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. R (RT)**| |||**563/RRC/GR.D/2014-15 DATED 17.12.2014**| |||**ADDRESSED TO RAILWAY BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**R8 3**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. P 563/E/O/11**| |||**(PILOT) DATED 3.12.2014 ADDRESSED TO**| |||**FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS**| |||**OFFICER TO CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**R9**|**TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARDS LETTER**| |||**NO.E (NG0 -II/2013 /RR-1/12**| |||**DATED 31.12.2014.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**||**TRUE COPY OF M.A. NO. 1320/2018 IN THE**| |||**ABOVE O.A.DATED 30.11.2018 FILED BY THE**| |||**PETITIONERS.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A27**|**TRUE COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS DATED 22.3.2018**| |||**AND 4.10.2018 FILED BY THE DIVISIONAL**| |||**PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,**| |||**PALAKKAD 678 002, IN O.P.(CAT) NO.26/2018**| |||**BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A28**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.**| |||**PB/RTI/146/2526 DATED 9.10.2018 RECEIVED**| |||**FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE**| |||**OFFICER OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL**| |||**OFFICER, ICF, UNDER THE RTI ACT.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**||**TRUE COPY OF UNNUMBERED M.A. (DY NO.**| |||**1350/19) IN O.A. NO. 939/2017 FILED BY**| |||**PETITIONERS TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS**| |||**DATED 17.7.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**A29**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER**| |||**NO. E (NG) 11/2009/RR-1/10PT**| |||**DATED 19.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE**| |||**GENERAL MANGER (P), ALL ZONAL**| |||**RAILWAYS/PRODUCTION UNITS.**| **- 33 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **EXHIBIT P9 A30 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR DOCUMENT VERIFICATION ISSUED BY NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A31 TRUE COPY OF RTI INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 14.5.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A32 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF CANDIDATE CALLED FOR DOCUMENT AND CANDIDATURE VERIFICATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT NOTICE NO. RRC/ECR/GP1800/1/2013.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A33 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY DATED 31.5.2019. EXHIBIT P9 A34 TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 2.2.2019 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.7.2019 IN O.A. NO. 939/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.4.2019 IN O.A. NO. 180/00712/2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.8.2018 IN O.A. NO. 60/343/2016 OF THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.MADHAVAKURUPU AND ITS REPLY DATED 21.10.2019** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI.M.PONNAIYA AND ITS REPLY DATED 10.10.2017.** **- 34 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 278/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED IN O.A.NOS.1039/2016, 939/2017 AND O.A.NO.179/2018 DATED 19/7/2019 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION BEARING O.A.NO.180/00179/2018 DATED 05/02/2018 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.RRC 02/2013 DATED 21/09/2013 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE ROLL NUMBERS OF EACH OF THE APPLICANTS FOR THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND OTHER DETAILS.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED LIST OF DIFFERENT PANELS UPLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS BEARING RBE NO.121/2005 DATED 18/7/2005.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS BEARING RBE NO.166.2005 AND 29/9/2005.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10/5/2017 SENT BY ONE OF THE APPLICANT'S MOTHER.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLIES RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO A7.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A8(A)) TRUE COPY OF THE MORE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A9) TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING RBE NO.73/2008 DATED 17/6/2008 (PRODUCED AS R3 IN O.A.NO.175/2014).** **- 35 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **EXHIBIT P2(A10) TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BERING RBE NO.6/2014 DATED 10/1/2014 (PRODUCED AS R4 IN O.A.NO.175/2014).** - **EXHIBIT P2(A11) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT) NO.78/2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 9/3/2016 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.** **EXHIBIT P2(A12) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E(NG.) 11/2010/RC-4/6 DATED 14/9/17.** **EXHIBIT P2(A13) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.SA/P.135/RTD.STAFF/RE-ENG/CO.ORD DATED 9/1/2018. EXHIBIT P2(A14) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.J/P/135/REENGAGEMENT DATED 27/12/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 DATED 01/03/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P3(R1) EXTRACT OF MANUAL FOR RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, 2007. EXHIBIT P3(R2) BRAKE UP FOR THE ENHANCED 12000 VACANCIES, CATEGORY WISE/COMMUNITY WIDE OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY. EXHIBIT P3(R3) ADVERTISEMENT INDICATING THAT THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION RESULT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ON 4/1/2015 AND INDICATING THE DATES FOR PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST (PET). EXHIBIT P3(R4) RAILWAY BOARD ORDERS RBE 138/2014 DATED 10/12/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P3(R5) ADVERTISEMENT INDICATING THAT THE SHORTLIST CANDIDATES CAN CHECK THE SCHEDULES FOR VERIFICATION IN THE WEBSITE OF RRC.** - **EXHIBIT P3(R6) SPECIMEN COPY OF THE LETTER OFFERING APPINTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3(R7) RAILWAY BOARD ORDER RBE NO.150/2017DATED 16/10/2017.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 07/06/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.** **- 36 -** **OP(CAT).245 & 278 of 2019** **EXHIBIT P4(A15) TRUE COPY LR.NO.B(NG)II/2007/RR-1/58 DATED 8/12/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P4(A16) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(NG)II/2009/RR1/10/PT.(7525) DATED 10/12/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P4(A17) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(NG)II/2013/RR1/12 DATED 20/10/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P5 ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 04/07/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES FILED BY RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P5(R8(1) LETTER NO.P(RT) 563/RRC/GR.D/2014-15 DATED 11/12/2014 ADDRESSED TO THE RAILWAY BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P5(R8)(2) LETTER NO.P(RT) 563/RRC/GR.D./2014-15 DATED 17/12/2014 ADDRESSED TO RAILWAY BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P5(R8(3)) LETTER NO.P 563/E/O/II(PILOT) DATED 3/12/2014 ADDRESSED BY THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER TO CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P5(R9) RAILWAY BOARDS LETTER NO.E(NG) II/2013/RR1/12 DATED 31/12/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/11/2017 IN DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP AND OTHERS VS SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY AND OTHERS (CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 11364 OF 2018).** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.712/2016 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 12/4/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RRC NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER 5/2010 DATED 15/12/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RAILWAY BOARD ORDER BEARING NUMBER E.(NG)-II/96/RR-1/62 DATED 18/7/2005.** **[TRUE COPY]**