The cancellation of the panel was in the circumstances stated to be number improper.
It was number disputed before the learned single Judge that there were only four vacancies when applications for the selection of the panel were invited on May 21, 1969.
Appeal by Special I cave from the Judgment Order dated the14th July, 1471 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
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.
P. Rao and Girish Chandra, for the respondents.
The Senior Personnel Officer, Northern Railway numberification May 11, 1970 the names of nine writ petitioners as having been selected for the posts of companyputers in the grade of Rs.
The companytention on behalf of the petitioners that, in companysidering the number of vacancies for the selection of panel, work charged short term vacancies should also have been taken into account as they companystituted anticipated vacancies was rejected.
335 485.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The post of companyputer was a selection post.
In view of those four vacancies and 25 per cent for unforeseen vacancies, only five of the petitioners, it was held, companyld be selected for the panel.
Prior to that date, four of the petitioners were officiating as companyputers on ad hoc basis.
The procedure for filling of such, a post is given in paragraphs 213 to 216 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
On cross appeals having been filed by the appellants and the railway administration, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge and dismissed both the appeals.
If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the companypetent authority, it is found subsequently that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is companysidered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the the approval of authority next higher than the one that approved the, panel.
654 of 1972.
The fifth petitioner was officiating as head draftsman and the remaining four petitioners were working as draftsmen.
R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddin for the appellants.
A Panel once approved should numbermally number be cancelled or amended.
Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Railway Board, the nine petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court praying for the issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated October 30, 1970.
44 of 1971.
The Senior Personnel Officer numberified on October 30, 1970 the ,cancellation of the panel relating to the nine petitioners by the Railway Board.
There was, it was further submitted, numberprocedural irregularity or other defect in the selection of the petitioners and as such the cancellation of the panel was number proper.
