RBE No.64/2004: GDCE – Eligibility of RPF/RPSF personnel – OA No.2661/2003 dismissed

No.E(NG)I/2002/PM 2/9, dated 24.03.2004

Sub: Scheme of GDCE for filling up a part of Direct Recruitment quota of posts in Group ‘C’ categories – Consideration of RPF personnel.

In terms of instructions contained in this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 11.08.2003 (RBE No.139/2003), RPF/RPSF staff have been debarred from appearing in GDCE and other Departmental Selections for promotion in Departments other than RPF/RPSF. The validity of these instructions was challenged before CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide OA No.2661/2003. The Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi have upheld these instructions vide their Judgment dated 30.12.2003. A copy of this Judgment is sent here with for information and guidance.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.2661/2003
[decided on 30.12.2003]
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. V.K. Majotra, Vice Chairman (A)
The Hon’ble Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Member(J)

Vijayender Singh and Others                      –                Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others                           –                Respondents

Advocates
For the Petitioner – Mr. B.S.Mainee
For the respondents – Mr. V.S.R. Krishna

ORDER

Bharat Bhushan, Member(J)

1. Applicants have challenged Annexure A-1 dated 11.08.2003 (RBE No.139/2003) issued by the Railway Board (Respondent No.2) wherein it is stated that RPF/RPSF personnel cannot be allowed to appear in General Departmental Competitive Examination (in shorts GDCE) for appointment/promotion to posts in Department other than RPF/RPSF in the Railways. It has further stated in the said order that they will also, not be eligible to appear in other Departmental selections in Departments other than RPF/RPSF. However it is also mentioned that the past cases decided otherwise will not be reopened.
2. The applicants who were working as Constables in RPF/RPSF, have sought quashing of the aforesaid letter dated 11.08.2003 (RBE No.139/2003) and a direction to the respondents to consider the applicants as well for the post of Junior Cashier by permitting them to appear in the written test which was to be held on 04.11.2003. It is also urged that on earlier occasions too constable had been permitted to appear in such examinations.
3. The respondents while opposing the plea of the applicants have submitted that by issuance of the internal correspondence/ policy decision as has been done by the respondents, no cause of action accrues to the applicants for filing the present application. The respondents have further stated that the applicants have already been issued communication dated 24.10.2003 vide which they have been informed that Railway Protection Force/ Railway Protection Special Force (hereinafter referred to as RPF/RPSF) personnel are not eligible to appear in the selection to the post of Junior Cashier (scale Rs.4000-6000), but the applicants have not so far challenged said order. The respondent’s main contention is that the RPF/RPSF personnel are combatised personnel and they have been inducted specifically to look after the security of the Indian Railways and the mode of the selection and training is tailor-made for the said purpose only and the decision now formally taken debarring them to participate in the selection being held for promotion to posts outside RPF/RPSF was in conformity and in line with the pattern being followed in other Central Police Forces as advised by Ministry of Home Affairs. Even otherwise, according to them, the applicants being from the combatised cadre cannot be shifted to administrative/ministerial cadre outside RPF/RPSF and hence the decision taken by them was in conformity with the overall policy of the respondents. They have further contended that even the notice for selection issued (Annexure R-2) would show that the same has not being circulated to the offices of RPF or the other offices of RPSF because the members of the disciplined Forces are not expected to participate in the examinations held for the selection to the post of Junior Cashier. While admitting that prior to the year 1997-98 some members of the RPF/RPSF had participated in the departmental examination for the post of Junior Cashiers, it is contended that it was on account of some inadvertent mistake on the part of the respondent, but this act in itself do not confer any right on other ineligible members of the Force to appear in the examination.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicants, drawing our attention to Para 170 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) (Annexure A-2), has submitted that the staff of Accounts Department and other Departments having a minimum of 5 years service are stated to be the eligible candidates for the post in the category of Junior Cashiers. The condition of the learned counsel for the applicants belonging to the RPF/RPSF service come within the definition of other Departments as mentioned and para 170 of the IREM. So, according to him, they are eligible to appear in the examination. He has also pointed out that on certain previous occasions as well the respondents had permitted Constables of RPF to appear for selection in the category of Junior Cashier and in this regard he has referred to Annexure A-3 dated 11.12.2001, which is a list of selected candidates on the panel of cashier as a result of written and viva-voce tests held earlier in the year 2001. His further submission is that the said para 170 does not impose any embargo on the RPF staff as not to permit them to appear in this election for the posts in other Departments of the Railways. Hence, his submission is that a valuable fundamental right of the applicants to appear in the examination is being arbitrarily and illegally taken away by the respondents without giving them any show cause notice. Hence, this act of the respondents, according to the learned counsel, is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
5. While repairing the arguments of the applicants, the learned counsel for the respondent has, at the first instance, submitted that the examination in the instant case has already been taken place as far back as on 04.11.2003 and even the supplementary examination for those candidates reporting sick under un-authorized Railway Medical Officer has also been taken place and as such the procedure for selection has been completed, so no cause of action now remains in favour of the applicants. Countering the other agreements of the applicants that they come within the meaning of the other Department staff as contained in para 170 of the IREM, the learned counsel has submitted that RPF/RPSF is a totally different entity and they are not the other Departmental staff as envisaged in para 170 of the IREM. His condition is that the purpose and object of creation of a special Force and the training imparted to members of such a Force does not permit them to change their status from that of combatised members to ministerial staff of the Railways and otherwise also it is not in the administrative or public interest that the members appointed after a stringent training are allowed to migrate to administrative jobs.
6. We have considered the rival contentions and have perused the material on record.
7. After a careful perusal of Para 170 of IREM, we are of the considered opinion that RPF/RPSF cannot be said to be covered within the meaning “other Department staff”. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the respondents that the applicants are part of a combatised Force created specifically to look after the security needs of the Indian Railways and the mode of their selection and training has also been conducted in that direction only. Thus, creation of such posts appears to be totally unrelated in the ministerial needs. Admittedly, the applicants had joined the Force and underwent special training with the full knowledge and intent to remain as member of the combatised Force only and not to migrate to ministerial cadre. Undoubtedly, as admitted by the respondents as well on certain earlier occasions some members of the RPF/RPSF staff had participated in the departmental examinations for the post of Junior Cashier, but we tend to agree with the arguments of the respondents that, by itself does not confer any right on otherwise ineligible members of the Force to appear in the examination because the applicants have not been able to produce before us any rules to show that they are entitled as a matter of right to appear in the examination for the post of Junior Cashier.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the fact that the present selections have already been conducted on 04.11.2003 and even otherwise also there being no merit in the case of applicants, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Download Railway Board Circular RBE No.64/2004

Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.47/2016,