Shitla Sahai Srivastava VS. General Manager, North Easternrailway

Summary

---

Selection to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector from that of Travelling Ticket Examiner is made by a Selection Board in accordance with the Promotion and Selection Rules (Non-Gazetted) framed under the Indian Railway Establishment Code Every year, the number of vacancies that are likely to occur during the year is assessed and in accordance with r.

8(7), eligible staff upto 4 times the number of anticipated vacancies are called up for written and viva voce tests.

Thereafter, the Board prepares a panel and promotions are made from the panel.

In 1959, there were 8 vacancies, in the ex-Muzaffarpur region of the North Eastern Railway, which were to be filled up immediately and in addition a panel of 6 was required to be drawn up. But, due to an incorrect assessment, 92 persons of whom the appellant was one, were called up for examination instead of 56. As a result of the tests a panel of 14 persons was prepared and the appellant was given the 12th rank. The final list was then prepared and the appellant was given the 13th rank; but a note was appended that the selection of candidates 9 to 14 was provisional.

Later, under orders of the General Manager, who was the prescribed authority, the names of candidates 9 to 14 were deleted from the panel.

The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226, but the High court dismissed it.

In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the deletion amounted to a reduction in rank and that the order was bad in law, because, the appellant was not given an opportunity before his name was deleted.

HELD : If a civil servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he win then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. Since, in the panel prepared, the word

"provisional" was specifically noted against the name of the appellant, it shows that he did not acquire a right to the post. The appellant could not complain of any infraction of the guarantee given by the Constitution to government servants and no penal consequences have been visited on him.

Therefore the deletion of his name from the panel did not attract the provisions of Art. 311. [65 C-E,, 67 E]

Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R.

828, followed.

Dineshwar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent Eastern Railway, A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 209, overruled.

62

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Shitla Sahai Srivastava VS. General Manager, North Easternrailway

PETITIONER: SHITLA SAHAI SRIVASTAVA Vs.

RESPONDENT: GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/1965

BENCH: SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

BENCH: SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)

WANCHOO, K.N.

HIDAYATULLAH, M.

RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION: 1966 AIR 1197 1966 SCR (3) 61

CITATOR INFO : R 1969 SC 212 (5)

R 1971 SC 766 (8)

ACT: Civil Service-Selection post-Inclusion of name in panel and later deletion-When amounts to reduction in rank.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 766 of 1964.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 19, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 268 of 1963.

S. P. Sinha and Shaukat Husain, for ...

See the full content of this document

If you are already a vLex customer, access here

---