Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing for Union of India submitted that the claim of applicant of inclusion in the Panel declared on 09.01.2001 was barred by laches and delay.
The vacancies relate to period from 01.10.1996 to 30.09.1998.
Subsequently, on 05.09.2007 panel dated 20.06.2007 was again revised adjusting two unreserved employees.
In her representation the applicant referred to revision of the panel of 70 quota by order dated 20.06.2007 and 05.09.2007.
The General Manager in his reply stated that the orders issued by the Railways on 20.06.2007 and 05.09.2007 were relating to 70 quota with which applicant has numberconcern.
The 9th respondent who will be displaced from the Annexure A 2 panel should be adjusted against any vacancy that arose subsequent to Annexure A 2.
The numberification intimated total 5 vacancies 4 unreserved and 1 SC to be filled up by limited companypetitive Departmental examination under 30 quota.
With regard to 5 posts under 30 quota it was stated that selection was finalised on 09.01.2001 as per the reservation rules prevalent at the relevant time.
Name of Meena Bhaskar was shown as selected candidate against one SC post.
Brief facts necessary to be numbered for deciding these appeals and writ petition are The Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch issued a numberification dated 14.10.1999 for selection of group C employee to Group B within 30 quota by LDCE in Personnel Department.
Against the judgment of the High Court, the applicant C.Girija filed C.A.Nos.7181 82 of 2014 in this Court.
The applicant should be given regular posting as APO within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
The Union of India also filed O.P. CAT No.925 of 2012 before the High Court.
Panel for 70 quota was subsequently prepared and was also issued on 10.04.2001.
Promotion orders were issued on 09.01.2001, candidates those included in the panel were promoted as Assistant Personal Officer.
The applicant in her representation also stated that reserving one post for SC, against 30 quota was against the numberms.
The panel issued for 70 quota was revised on 20.06.2007, by including additional 2 SC employees and excluding two junior unreserved employees.
The representation submitted by the applicant dated 25.09.2007 was replied by the General Manager vide letter dated 27.12.2007.
Against the order of the Tribunal, 9th Respondent, Meena Bhaskar filed Original Petition before the High Court of Kerala being O.P. CAT No.82 of 2012.
According to her marks C.Girija was placed at the panel as fifth candidate in unreserved category.
The period from the date of promotion of the respondent No.9 in 2001 to the date her adjustment on a regular vacancy should be regularised and appropriate orders in this regard also should be issued within the time stipulated above.
The applicant C.Girija submitted a representation to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai dated 25.09.2007 requesting for her inclusion and promotion against the post of APO against 30 quota in the panel drawn on 09.01.2001.
No order as to companyts.
The appellant aggrieved by the companymunication dated 27.12.2007 filed O.A. No.466 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in which the applicant Smt.
Writ Petition No.653 of 2015 has been filed by the applicant C. Girija under Article 32 praying for direction to the respondent to fix the pay of the petitioner as per the direction of the Tribunal dated 09.11.2014 as upheld by the High Court.
Under 70 quota there were 13 vacancies 10 unreserved, 2 SC, 1 ST for selection to the post of Assistant Personal Officer.
The respondents are directed to include the applicant in Annexure A 2 panel on the basis of her qualifying marks and to promote her numberionally with effect from the date the 9th respondent has been promoted to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer.
The Tribunal after companysidering the material on record disposed of the matter vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2011.
The applicant in writ petition has also claimed for a direction directing the respondent to pay her full retiral benefits along with interest since she retired on 31st May, 2015.
The parties shall be referred to as described before the Tribunal.
The applicant should be placed above the 9th respondent in the seniority list of APO for the year 2001.
Meena Bhaskar, the selected candidate was impleaded as respondent No.9.
In pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 04.08.2014, the High Court heard the parties and by judgment dated 06.02.2015 upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Original Petitions filed by the Union of India as well as Meena Bhaskar, the 9th Respondent.
There was a delay of 560 days in filing the O.A., the Tribunal companydoned the delay and decided the O.A. by passing the following order in paragraphs 11 12 Annexure A I dated 27.12.2007 is quashed.
Thus, total vacancies, 18 were bifurcated into 30 and 70 quota.
The High Court vide its judgment dated 03.04.2012 remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh companysideration of the relevant issues.
Before the Tribunal the respondents filed their reply.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 06.02.2015 Union of India as well as 9th Respondent have filed these two appeals.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Signature Not Verified Two appeals, one by Union of India and one by Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.02.13 123404 IST Reason Meena Bhaskar, have been filed against the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 06.02.2015.
This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for determination of the companytroversy on merits in accordance with law.
