LexV.CHARULATHA AND OTHERS versus S. GUNALAN, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MADRAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B V.CHARULATHA AND OTHERS v. S. GUNALAN, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MADRAS AND ORS. APRIL 4, 1995 [R.M. SAHAI AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Service Law-Contempt Petition-Railways-Selection for posts in non- technical categories-Results published-l>ecision to hold second examina- C tion-Quashe~Appea}-[)irection of Supreme Court to appoint selected candidates within a period of two weeks-Non- Compliance-Lapse of eight years-Explanation for not implementing order not satisfactory-Commitment to appoint candidates by March 1995 not honoured-l>irection made to ap- point all remaining candidates within a period of twelve weeks. D Contempt of Coutts Ac4 1971-&ervice matter---RaUways-Selection of posts in non-technical categorie~esults published-Decision to hold second examination-Quashed-l>irection of Supreme Court to appoint selected candidater-Non compliance-Commitment to appoint candidates by March 1995 not honoured-l>irection made to appoint all remaining E candidates within a period of twelve weeks. In 1987 the Railway Recruitment Board, Madras, advertised nearly 500 posts In the non-technlcal categories In the Indian Railways. Written examlnaUons were held on 15·11· 1987. On the next day a news Item was F published In one of the newspapers expressing concern about the possible leakage of the quesUon papers. However, results were published and Interviews were held. Since some of the candidates who had secured very high marks In the written examlnaUon secured very poor marks In the Interview, the authorlUes dedded to hold a second written examlnaUon. Some of the calldidates, who had appeared In the examination challenged G the order before the Central AdmlnlstraUve Tribunal. Some candidates approached the High Court. The Tribunal held that the Railway Recruit· ment Board was enUUed to conduct the second examination. ObjecUon Ried before the High Court that after constituUon of Tribunal, the High Court had no jurisdiction, was negatived. Against this order the Railways H Ried SLP. No Interim order was granted by this Court. The High Court 140 . --'. -- - V.CHARULATHAv. RLY.BOARD 141 quashed the order passed for holding second examination. This judg- A men! affirmed by the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court. On 18.9.1992 this court directed the appellants to appoint the selected candidates according to their merits in the existing vacancies within a period of two weeks from the date the order was passed. But B nothing substantial was done. Contempt applications were filed on 30.4.1993, i.e. after a lapse of nearly two years since the order was passed that it was brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant had nothing to do with appointments and it was the responsibility of the appointing authority. On 27.9.1993 this Court directed issue of notice to C the appointing authority. An assurance was given that all the candidates selected will be appointed according to the merit list in a phased manner by March'95. On 1.9.1994 this Court directed the Railways to explain as to why the order passed by this court had not boen complied with. It was prayed that extension of one year may be granted to comply with the order. Reason stated for non-compliance of the order were that number of posts D bad been absolished due to introduction of computers aud closing down of various works units; that by the time the writ petitions were decided by the High Court and the order that no fresh examinations could be held became final, the Railway Recruitment Board had received two panels of 1989 and 1990 consisting of 998 candidates; that the availability of the vacancies totally changed and it became impossible to appoint the selected E candidates and that there was no way out except to appoint these persons as and when vacancies arise. It was stated that the candidates who were selected for Southern Railway had been offered appointment in other Railways, they had expressed unwillingness to join the post. Disposing of the matter, this Court F HELD: 1.1. In the instant case eight years had elapsed since advertisement was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for the selection in the non-technical categories in the Indian Railways. The result was decldred in 1988. The explanation for not implementing the order G passed by this conrt was not satisfactory. The authorities had not honoured their own commitments to appoint the candidates by Mar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.