http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: K.   K. WAHI & ORS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GENERAL MANAGER, N. RLY. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/01/1975

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ RAY, A.N. (CJ) GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1975 AIR  761            1975 SCR  (3) 157  1975 SCC  (3) 501

ACT: Railway Establishment Code-Paragraph 216-Scope of.

HEADNOTE: The nine petitioners before the High Court were selected for the  post  of computers and were empanelled.   After  a  few months  the panel was cancelled.  In a writ  petition  under art.  2 of the Constitution the petitioners  contended  that there  were no procedural irregularities or defects  in  the selection  and  as such the cancellation of the  penal,  was improper.   The High Court held that since there  were  only four vacancies only five persons could be selected forthe panel  after  taking into             account  25  per  cent unforeseen vacanciesand rejected the contention of  the petitioners that work-charged shortterm       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  currency  of  the panel.   Vacancies arising 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 posts or for other similar  cause.   A short  term vacancy for a work-charged job cannot tic said to arise due to normal wastage. [159C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 654 of 1972. Appeal  by  Special I-cave from the Judgment &  Order  dated the14th July, 1471 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. P. P. Rao and Girish 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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  notification May 11,   1970 the names of nine writ petitioners as  having been selected’ for  the  posts of computers in the grade  of Rs.  335-485.  Prior to that date, four of  the  petitioners were  officiating as computers on ad hoc basis.   The  fifth petitioner  was  officiating  as  head  draftsman  and   the remaining  four petitioners were working as draftsmen.   The post  of computer was a selection post.  The  procedure  for filling of such, 158 a  post  is  given in paragraphs 213 to 216  of  the  Indian Railway  Establishment  Manual.   Paragraph  216,  which  is material for our purposes, reads as under :               "216.   After  the  competent  authority   has               accepted the recommendations of the  Selection               Board,  the names of the  candidates  selected               will  be notified to the candidates.  A  Panel               once approved should normally not be cancelled               or  amended.   If  after  the  formation   and               announcement of the panel with the approval of               the   competent   authority,   it   is   found               subsequently   that  there   were   procedural               irregularities  or  other defects  and  it  is               considered 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." The  Senior Personnel Officer notified on October  30,  1970 the  ,cancellation  of  the  panel  relating  to  the   nine petitioners by the Railway Board. 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.  It was urged on  behalf  of  the petitioners  that  the power to cancel the  panel  could  be exercised  under  paragraph 216 reproduced above if  it  was found  that  there were procedural irregularities  or  other defects.  There was, it was further submitted, no procedural irregularity  or  other  defect  in  the  selection  of  the petitioners  and as such the cancellation of the  panel  was not proper.  As against that, it was stated on behalf of the railway  administration  that  there  bad  been   procedural irregularities  and  other defects in the selection  of  the petitioners  for the panel.  The cancellation of  the  panel was in the circumstances stated to be not improper. It  was  not 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.   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 on behalf of  the petitioners that, in considering the number of vacancies for the  selection of panel, work charged  short-term  vacancies should also have been taken into account as they constituted anticipated  vacancies  was  rejected.  In  the  result  the learned  single Judge quashed 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 filed by the  appellants and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the  railway administration, the Division Bench of the  High Court 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 apart from the vacancies which were  taken into account by the 159 High  Court, there were workcharged  short-term  anticipated vancancies.    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  are unable to accede to the above submission.  According to  the instructions  contained in letters dated November  12,  1968 and April 30, 1969 anticipated vacancies could be only those vacancies  which were likely 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  %-as earlier.  We agree with the High Court  that workcharged short-term vacancies are not such as can be said to  arise due to normal wastage during the currency  of  the panel.   Vacancies arising due to normal wastage during  the currency  of a panel are such as can generally  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 normal wastage. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. P.B.R.                     Appeal dismissed. 160