# K. K. WAHI & ORS v. THE GENERAL MANAGER, N. RLY. & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 157
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-01-10
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, H. R. :Khanna, P. K. GoswAMr
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/k-k-wahi-ors-v-the-general-manager-n-rly-ors-6393
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

/?'1illl'ay Establishment Code-Paragraph 216-Scopc of.
15 7
The nine petitioners before the High Court were selected for the post of
computers and were empanelled. After a few months the panel
wa»
'ancelled. In a writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitu.tion
the
petitioners contended that there. were no procedural irregularities or defect'
in the selection and as such the cancellation of the panel was improper. The·
High Court held that since there were only four vacancies, only five persons
could be selected for the panel after taking into account 25 per cent unforseen vacancies
and rejected the contention of the
petitioners
that
work-charged short term vacancies should also have been taken into account.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD: The High Court was right in holding that
work-charged
short
term vacancies were not such as should be said to arise due to normal wastage
during the currericy of the panel. Vacancies arisillg due to normal wastage
during the currency of a panel are such as could generally be foreseen because
they occur on account of retirement of those at present holding the pas ts or
for other similar cause.
A short term va:ancy for a work-charged job cannot
b~ ~aid to arise due to normal wastage.
[159C]
·
C!Vll APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 65~ o( 1972.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the
14th July, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 44 of 1971.
B. R: L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M.
Qamaruddin for the appellants.
I'. P. Rao and GirL~h Chandra, for the respondents.
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave by K. K. Wahi and two
others is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge whereby petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by nine petitioners, including the three appellants, to challenge an order about
the cancellation of a penal by the Railway Board was
only partly
allowed.
The Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway noti!.lccl on May
11, 1970 the names of nine writ petitioners as having been selected
for the posts of computors in the grade of Rs. 335-485.
Prior . to
that date, four of the petitioners were officiating as computors on ad
hoc basis. The fifth petitioner was offic:iating as head draftsman and
the remaining four petitioners were working as draftsmen. The p0st
of computer was a selection post. The procedure for filling of such
158
SUPREME COURT l,l.EPORTS
[1975] 3 S:C.R.
a post is given in paragraphs 213 to 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
Pmagraph 216, which is material for our purposes, reds as under :
"216. After the competent authority has accepted lhc
rccommend'ations of the Selection Board, the names of the
candidates selected will be notified to the candlclatc:;.
A
Panel once approved should normally not be · c:m.;dled or
ameaded. If after the formation and announcement of the
panel with the approval of the competent autl1onty, it is
found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities
or other defects and it is considered necessary to Cl!.l\ltel or
amend such a panel, this should be done after obtai11in1~ the
approval nf authority next higher than the one tint approved
the panel."
The Senior P.::rsoi,mcl Oft1cer notified on Octob.:r 30. 1970 th·~
· rnncellat10n of the r;•anCI relating to the nine petitiOl~crn b) the Railway Board.
Fcdmg aggucved against the order of the Railway Board, the nine
petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court praying (or the issuance of a writ for quashing th'l order dated Octooer 30, 1970. It
was urged 01,1 behalf of the petitioners that the power to cancel the
panel cJuiu be exercised under paragraph 216 reproduced abow it
it was fo1Jnd that there were procedural irregularities or other defects.
There was, it was further submitted, n.o procedural irregularity or
other defoct in the selection of the petitioners and as such thi: cancellation of the ouhcl was not proper.
As a,1

## Text

A
B
c
D
I
H
K. K. WAHI & ORS
v.
THE GENERAL MANAGER, N. RLY. & ORS.
January 10, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. :KHANNA AND P. K. GoswAMr, JJ.J
/?'1illl'ay Establishment Code-Paragraph 216-Scopc of.
15 7
The nine petitioners before the High Court were selected for the post of
computers and were empanelled. After a few months the panel
wa»
'ancelled. In a writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitu.tion
the
petitioners contended that there. were no procedural irregularities or defect'
in the selection and as such the cancellation of the panel was improper. The·
High Court held that since there were only four vacancies, only five persons
could be selected for the panel after taking into account 25 per cent unforseen vacancies
and rejected the contention of the
petitioners
that
work-charged short term vacancies should also have been taken into account.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD: The High Court was right in holding that
work-charged
short
term vacancies were not such as should be said to arise due to normal wastage
during the currericy of the panel. Vacancies arisillg due to normal wastage
during the currency of a panel are such as could generally be foreseen because
they occur on account of retirement of those at present holding the pas ts or
for other similar cause.
A short term va:ancy for a work-charged job cannot
b~ ~aid to arise due to normal wastage.
[159C]
·
C!Vll APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 65~ o( 1972.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order dated the
14th July, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 44 of 1971.
B. R: L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M.
Qamaruddin for the appellants.
I'. P. Rao and GirL~h Chandra, for the respondents.
KHANNA, J. This appeal by special leave by K. K. Wahi and two
others is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge whereby petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by nine petitioners, including the three appellants, to challenge an order about
the cancellation of a penal by the Railway Board was
only partly
allowed.
The Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway noti!.lccl on May
11, 1970 the names of nine writ petitioners as having been selected
for the posts of computors in the grade of Rs. 335-485.
Prior . to
that date, four of the petitioners were officiating as computors on ad
hoc basis. The fifth petitioner was offic:iating as head draftsman and
the remaining four petitioners were working as draftsmen. The p0st
of computer was a selection post. The procedure for filling of such
158
SUPREME COURT l,l.EPORTS
[1975] 3 S:C.R.
a post is given in paragraphs 213 to 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
Pmagraph 216, which is material for our purposes, reds as under :
"216. After the competent authority has accepted lhc
rccommend'ations of the Selection Board, the names of the
candidates selected will be notified to the candlclatc:;.
A
Panel once approved should normally not be · c:m.;dled or
ameaded. If after the formation and announcement of the
panel with the approval of the competent autl1onty, it is
found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities
or other defects and it is considered necessary to Cl!.l\ltel or
amend such a panel, this should be done after obtai11in1~ the
approval nf authority next higher than the one tint approved
the panel."
The Senior P.::rsoi,mcl Oft1cer notified on Octob.:r 30. 1970 th·~
· rnncellat10n of the r;•anCI relating to the nine petitiOl~crn b) the Railway Board.
Fcdmg aggucved against the order of the Railway Board, the nine
petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court praying (or the issuance of a writ for quashing th'l order dated Octooer 30, 1970. It
was urged 01,1 behalf of the petitioners that the power to cancel the
panel cJuiu be exercised under paragraph 216 reproduced abow it
it was fo1Jnd that there were procedural irregularities or other defects.
There was, it was further submitted, n.o procedural irregularity or
other defoct in the selection of the petitioners and as such thi: cancellation of the ouhcl was not proper.
As a,11ai11st that, it was stated on
behalf of the railwav administration that there had
be1~11 m-occdu1•a\
irregularities and other defects in the selection of the peti1ioncrs for
the panel. The cancellation of the panel was in the circumstances
state.ti to be 11Ul improper.
It wa:;; not disputed before the learned single Judge that there were
only four vacancies when applications for the selection of the panel
were invjted on May 21, 1969. In view of those four vacancies and
25 per cent for unforeseen vacancies, only five of the petitioners, it
was held, could be selected for the panel. The contention nn behalf
of the pf:titioners that, in considering the number of vacancies for
the selection of panel, workcharged short-term vacancies should also
have been taken into account as they constituted anticipated vacai,1cies
was rejected.
In the result the learned single Judge qU'ashed
the
order for cancellation of the panel in so far as it related to five out of
the nine petitioners. The cancellation order was, however, upheld in
respect of the remaining four petitioners including the three appellants.
On cross appeals having been fileu by the appellants and the railway adm'inistration, the· Divisio1,1 Bench of the High Courll affirmed
the decision of the learned single Judge and dismissed 'both the
appeals.
Before us Mr. Iyengar on behalf of the appellants has submitted
that oaparl: from the vacancies which were taken into account by the
A
B
c
D
F
Ci
Ir
K •. K. WAHi v. G.M., N. RLY (Khanna, J.)
15 9
\ · High Court, there were workcharged short-term anticipated vancancicc"
It is submitted that.' these short-term anticipated vacancies too should
have also been taken into account in considering the total number of
vacancies for which selection was to be made for the panel. We arc
unable to accede to the above submission. According to the instructions contained in letters dated November 12, 1968 and April 30, 1969
anticipated vaC'ancies could be only those vacancies which were likely
B ·to arise due to normal wastage during the currency of the panel. A
. panel under paragraph 217 was to be current for two years from the
date of approval by the competent authority or till its exhaustion,
whichever w•as earlier.
We agree with the High Court that workcharged short-term vacancies are not such as can be said to arise
due to norm11l wastage during the currency of the panel.
Vac:mcics
arising due to normal wastage during the currency of a panel an:
c
such as can 1?enerallv be foreseen because they occur on account of
the retirement of those at present holding the posts or for other similar
cause. A short-term vacancy for a workcharged job cannot be said
to •arise due to nonnal wastage.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the
circumstances without costs.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.