# Raj Kumar v. UIO and others. He also

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 754
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24625 of 2009
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Het Singh Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-v-uio-and-others-he-also-42275
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Right
to appointment-petitioner being selected
as Pro ASM-given four opportunities to
clear Practical Training-but remained
failed-original application rejected on
ground of un-explained delay of 8 yearsPost
of
Pro-ASM
is
a
post
of
responsibility-petitioner
being
wholly
incompetent can not be allowed further
opportunity-where
the
recruitment
process came to an end in the year 1999.

Held: Para 11 and 12

In our considered opinion no further
opportunity is required to be given to the
petitioner for clearing the training of the
post of Pro ASM now after lapse of
almost fourteen years of his passing of
the written examination and interview
particularly when no rule provides for
repeated
opportunities.
The
Original
Application was moved by the petitioner
after about eight years for which there is
no reasonable explanation in law . He
even did not move any application
alongwith the O.A. for condonation of
delay showing sufficient cause for delay.

For all these reasons stated above, there
is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 27.3.2009 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal
rejecting to him and to appoint him as
Pro ASM. We, therefore, uphold the
impugned orders dated 27.3.2009 of the
Tribunal as well as the order dated
17.8.2007 passed by the authority.

## Text

754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
communication to the authorities and for
implementation of the present order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE HET SINGH YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24625 of 2009

Raj Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Central Administration Tribunal &
Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Saran
Sr Sushil Kumar Srivastava

Constitution of India, Article 226-Right
to appointment-petitioner being selected
as Pro ASM-given four opportunities to
clear Practical Training-but remained
failed-original application rejected on
ground of un-explained delay of 8 yearsPost
of
Pro-ASM
is
a
post
of
responsibility-petitioner
being
wholly
incompetent can not be allowed further
opportunity-where
the
recruitment
process came to an end in the year 1999.

Held: Para 11 and 12

In our considered opinion no further
opportunity is required to be given to the
petitioner for clearing the training of the
post of Pro ASM now after lapse of
almost fourteen years of his passing of
the written examination and interview
particularly when no rule provides for
repeated
opportunities.
The
Original
Application was moved by the petitioner
after about eight years for which there is
no reasonable explanation in law . He
even did not move any application
alongwith the O.A. for condonation of
delay showing sufficient cause for delay.

For all these reasons stated above, there
is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 27.3.2009 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal
rejecting to him and to appoint him as
Pro ASM. We, therefore, uphold the
impugned orders dated 27.3.2009 of the
Tribunal as well as the order dated
17.8.2007 passed by the authority.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner challenges the
impugned order dated 17.8.2007 passed
by the Divisional Railway Manager,
Jhansi and order dated 27.3.2009 passed
by
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad in O.A. No. 314 (D) of 2009,
Raj Kumar Vs. UIO and others. He also
prayed for mandamus commanding the
respondents to permit him to work as
Assistant Station Master (hereinafter
referred as Pro ASM) and pay him his
salary of the post regularly.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
notification
no.
RRB/BPL/5/96
was
published in Newspaper by the Railway
Recruitment
Board,
Bhopal
inviting
applications for appointments on various
posts in the Railway. The petitioner
submitted
his
application
for
consideration of his candidature on the
post of Pro ASM. After clearing written
examination
and
interview
he
was
selected for the post of Pro Asm on
3.12.1997 at Faridabad and was required
to undergo practical training at Bhusawal
before appointment. A Perusal of the
communication
dated
17.8.2005
(Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition)
2 All] Raj Kumar V. The Central Administration Tribunal and others
755
shows that representation of the petitioner
to the Minister of Railways was not
considered favourably as inspite of four
opportunities provided to him to clear the
training he could not do so. Hence he was
not appointed appointment on the said
post. Letter dated 17.8.2005 reads thus:

^^ekuuh; jsy ea=h] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh
dks mijksDr fo"k; esa vkids }kjk Hkstk x;k izfrosnu
fnukWd fuy bl dk;kZy; dks izkIr gqvk gSA

bl lEcU/k esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd
izks0 ,,l,e ds vkjfEHkd izf'k{k.k esa vkidks pkj ckj
Hkqlkoy Hkstk x;k Fkk ,oa mDr izf'k{k.k esa izR;sd
ckj vuqRrh.kZ ?kksf"kr gksus ds dkj.k vkidks lgk;d
LVs'ku ekLVj ds in ij in LFkkfir ugha fd;k x;k
FkkA^^

4. It appears that the petitioner then
moved representations dated 5.3.2008 to
the General Manager, North Central Rly,
Allahabad as well as to the Senior
Divisional
Personnel
Officer
North
Central Rly. Jhansi for granting him one
more opportunity to clear the training for
the post of Pro ASM but no heed is
alleged to have been paid to his
representations. Therefore he moved the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad by means of O.A. No. 314 (D)
of 2009, Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India
and others which was dismissed by the
Tribunal
vide
its
judgement
dated
27.3.2009 in the following terms:

"Registry to place Sl. No. of inward
Register ( Register NO.1 as the number of
O.A. Qualified capital letter "D" and after
year capital letter 'N.R' within brackets.

2.Accordingly to scrutiny report and
Note of Registry dated 26.3.2009, O.A. Is
time barred about 08 years and no
application for condonation of delay, as
required under law, has been filed.

3.It is clear from the facts stated in
the O.A. That the applicant has been
representing before the respondents from
26.6.2003 and thereafter on 05.03.2008
and 20.11.2008. He again waited without
'good reason' from 20.11.2008 i.e. for
about 07 months. According to the
applicant, in response to representation
dated 26.6.2003, he received certain
information from the respondents vide
letter dated 17.8.2007, this does not
furnish adequate explanation to show that
the applicant has acted diligently and
bonafide. His conduct in this respect, is
casual, negligence and full of apathy.

4.Cause of action, if any, arose in the
year 1997, thereafter in 2003 and then in
2007. since the period of limitation
prescribed
under
section
21
of
Administrative Tribunal Act 1985, is only
one year from the date of initial causes of
action arose', the O.A. ( un-numbered) is
highly time barred and it is accordingly
dismissed.

5.There will be no order as to costs."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that if the petitioner is provided
with one more opportunity to appear in
the training he would clear it and that his
third opportunity got wasted as he could
not appear in that training due to reason
that he was suffering from Typhoid at that
time therefore he should be given another
opportunity to appear in the training in
lieu thereof.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that the petitioner
had
already
been
granted
four
opportunities to clear the training but he
could not do so and that a person can not
be granted infinite opportunities till he
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
clears the training particularly when other
subsequent batches were coming for
training hence it is not be possible to give
training to one person time and again
merely because he was not able to clear it.

7.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the parties .

8. On perusal of the judgement
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, firstly which has recorded a
finding unexplained delay of eight years
in moving the Tribunal. It is settled that
repeated representations do not relax the
limitation under the statutory provisions
under
section
21
of
Central
Administrative Tribunal. The limitation to
move the Central Administrative Tribunal
is one year from the date of cause of
action arises.

9. Moreover, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner though
was able to clear the written examination
and interview for post of Pro ASM but
failed to clear the training even though
opportunities were granted to him by the
Railways at least four times. Thus he
having failed in the training examination
for which the recruitment process is
already over in 1999, the respondents can
not be directed to appoint the petitioner
now on the post of Pro ASM by giving
him another opportunity the fifth time to
clear the
training.
As
regards
his
contention that during the period third
opportunity was granted to him he
suffered from Typhoid and as such could
not appear in the examination to clear it,
hence was entitled to another opportunity,
we can only say that railway had been
liberal enough to give him another
opportunity the fourth time to clear the
training examination in which he again
failed.

10. To our mind the petitioner is a
through incompetent person as far as
passing of practical training is concerned.
The post of Pro ASM is a post of
responsibility involving rail traffic. Lives
of passengers and accident free running of
trains requires a competent person. They
cannot be put in the hands of such persons
who are not able to clear even basic
training for the post even in four attempt.

11. In our considered opinion no
further opportunity is required to be given
to the petitioner for clearing the training
of the post of Pro ASM now after lapse of
almost fourteen years of his passing of the
written
examination
and
interview
particularly when no rule provides for
repeated
opportunities.
The
Original
Application was moved by the petitioner
after about eight years for which there is
no reasonable explanation in law . He
even did not move any application
alongwith the O.A. for condonation of
delay showing sufficient cause for delay.

12. For all these reasons stated
above, there is no illegality or infirmity in
the impugned order dated 27.3.2009
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal rejecting to him and to appoint
him as Pro ASM. We, therefore, uphold
the impugned orders dated 27.3.2009 of
the Tribunal as well as the order dated
17.8.2007 passed by the authority.

13. The writ petition accordingly
dismissed.

14. No orders as to costs.
---------
2 All] Surendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25711 of 2010

Surendra Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal
and avoidance of delay) Rule 1995-Rule7-readwith Civil Services RegulationsRegulation-357-A-Disciplinary
proceeding-charge sheet submitted on
13.06.07-reply submitted on 27.06.07inquiry report submitted on 19.12.07show cause notice given 22.01.08 replied
on 14.02.09-after 6 month of retirementaddition chargesheet given on 08.10.09Governor granted sanction on 18.12.09after
two
month
of
additional
chargesheet-allegation related to 200203 (more than 4 years)-Departmental
inquiry not concluded within 6 month of
retirement-additional
chargesheet
quashed-earlier
proceeding
not
concluded
within
6
month-stood
dropped-entitled for entire retirement
benefit with 10 % interest.

Held: Para 15 and 16

Further
the
U.P.
Pension
Cases
(Submission, disposal and Avoidance of
Delay )Rules, 1995 provides for the time
schedule in which the inquiry is to be
completed. As per Rule 17, the pending
departmental proceeding as against the
retired employee must be completed
within six months after his retirement.
As such, the disciplinary proceedings or
enquiry, if any, on the basis of the
charge sheet dated 13.6.2007 should
have been concluded up to six months
after the retirement of the petitioner,
which would be up to 30th September,
2009. Further the sanction was granted
by the Governor after the said date on
18.12.2009, which was in contravention
of the aforesaid rules.

In view of what has been stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, the issuance of
the
additional
charge
sheet
dated
8.10.2009 is liable to be quashed, being
violative of Rule 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulation. Further the order
dated 18.12.2009 is also liable to be
quashed being in contravention of Rule
17 of U.P. Pension Cases (Submission,
Disposal and Avoidance of Delay ) Rules,
1995.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as
Assistant
Sales
Tax
Officer
on
15.10.1976. He was served with a charge
sheet on 13.6.2007, to which the
petitioner
submitted
his
reply
on
27.9.2007.
Thereafter
the
Enquiry
Officer submitted his report dated
19.12.2007 exonerating the petitioner in
5 out of 6 charges and one charge No. 2
was
partially
proved
against
the
petitioner. A show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 22.1.2008, to
which the petitioner submitted his
detailed reply on 14.2.2008

2.

However,
no
order
of
punishment was passed against the
petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority
and in the meantime on 31.3.2009 the
petitioner has retired from the post of
Deputy
Commissioner
Trade
Tax.
However, after six months of the
retirement, an additional charge sheet
dated 8.10.2009 was issued to the