[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Om Prakash Ranjan And Ors on 26 August, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010183562025
2025:GAU-
AS:11342-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4782/2025
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NF RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI
ASSAM 781011
2: THE GENRAL MANAGER (P)
N F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI 11
3: THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANGER (P)
N F RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM
4: THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER
N F RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM
5: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (COORDINATION)
N F RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION TINSUKIA ASSAM
6: THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER /II
N F RAILWAY TINSUKIA DIVISION ASSA
VERSUS
OM PRAKASH RANJAN AND ORS
S/O SRI RAMJEE PRAJAPATI R/O KADAMTAL WARD NO. 6 PURANI SAHAR
PO DAUD NAGAR DIST AURANGABAD BIHAR PIN 824143
2:PRAMOD KUMAR TANTI
S/O SRI DHANUSHDHARI PRASAD TANTI R/O MANPUR SUDHITOLA
ARUN NAGAR PO BUNIADGANJ DIST GAYA BIHAR PIN 823003
3:BIMALESH KUMAR BIMAL
S/O CHATURBHUJ SAHU R/O VILL KANTI PS KANTI DIST MUJJAFARPUR
BIHAR PIN 84310
Page No.# 2/7
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S ROY,
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MR H K DAS,MS D MAHANTA,MR N K
SARMA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 26/08/2025
(Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC, appearing for the writ petitioners.
Also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2
& 3.
2. The petitioners’ case is that the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, had disposed of Original Application No.
040/173/2025 (Sri Om Prakash Ranjan Vs. Uion of India & Others), Original
Application No. 040/171/2025 (Sri Pramod Kumar Tanti Vs. Union of India and
others) and Original Application No. 040/192/2025 (Sri Bimalesh Kumar Bimal
Vs. Union of India and others), vide common order dated 23/07/2025, directing
the writ petitioners to relieve the private respondents, by accepting their
technical resignations, with a condition that the respondents would not retain
lien over the posts held by them once they joined as Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the Government of Bihar. The petitioners’
case is that the above 3 (three) Original Applications (OAs) were disposed of by
the learned Tribunal at the admission stage, without issuing any notice and
without allowing the writ petitioners to file any affidavit.
Page No.# 3/7
3. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, on the other
hand, submits that the respondents, who were working as Junior Engineer
(Civil)/Senior Section Engineer under the writ petitioners, were given No
Objection Certificates (NOCs) to apply for the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the Government of Bihar, pursuant to the
advertisement dated 08/03/2019. The private respondents were thereafter
selected for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the
Government of Bihar in terms of the advertisement dated 08/03/2019. On being
selected, the respondents submitted their applications, for acceptance of their
technical resignations, to enable them to join the new post of Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the Government of Bihar.
4. The learned counsel for the private respondents submits that as the
writ petitioners had allowed the private respondents to participate in the
selection process for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical), the writ petitioners could not now withhold their
applications, tendering their technical resignations. The learned counsel for the
private respondents also submits that in a similar matter i.e WP(C)
4425/2025 (The Union of India and 6 others Vs. Jagdev Kumar), which
was decided on 18/08/2025, this Court had upheld the directions passed by the
learned Tribunal, directing the writ petitioners to accept the technical
resignation of the respondent, who had been appointed as Junior Engineer
under the Government of Bihar, subsequent to an NOC issued, allowing the
respondents to take part in the selection process.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. As can be seen from the documents on record, the private
Page No.# 4/7
respondents who were working as Junior Engineer (Civil)/Senior Section
Engineers under the N.F. Railways, had applied for granting of NOC, to
participate in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the Government of Bihar. The same
had been granted by the writ petitioners to the private respondents and
accordingly, the private respondents participated in the selection process. The
private respondents were thereafter selected for appointment as Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical), Government of Bihar. The private respondents
tendered their technical resignations from the writ petitioners, to enable them to
join their new posts under the Government of Bihar. However, the writ
petitioners declined to accept the technical resignations of the private
respondents, on the ground that due to paucity of Officers in the N.F. Railways,
it was not possible for the Railway Administration to relieve the respondents
from their current posts. Further, in terms of the letter dated 15/07/1991 issued
by the Joint Director, Establishment (N), Railway Board to the General
Managers, All Indian Railways, the General Managers/Head of Departments
were given the power to withhold applications from their Officers, who sought
opportunities for being recruited outside the N.F. Railways.
7. We have also noticed the letter No. W/PCE/Misc/Pt.II dated
08/08/2025 issued by the Principal Chief Engineer to the N.F.Railways, which
states that in view of the acute shortage of “safety category staff” in the NFR,
the NOC of employees who seek to participate in a selection process in other
State Government/Central Government etc, shall be issued only after getting
approval from the Headquarter. In the present case, the NOC to the private
respondents had been issued much prior to the letter dated 08/08/2025. As
such, when the NOC had been issued to the private respondents to participate
Page No.# 5/7
in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) under the Government of Bihar, there was no
justification for the petitioners to withhold the technical resignations tendered
by them, on the private respondents being selected for the said posts.
8. We have also noticed that in the impugned judgement and order
dated 23/07/2025 passed by the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioners were
represented and there is nothing in the impugned order to show that the writ
petitioners had asked for any time to file affidavit. In any event, the issue raised
herein by the writ petitioners would have been the same before the learned
Tribunal. In the writ petition, no averment has been made by the writ
petitioners to the effect that the counsel for the writ petitioners had asked for
time to file an affidavit before the learned Tribunal. As such, the stand of the
writ petitioners that they should be given time to file affidavit on the same
points that have been raised herein, cannot be said to have caused any
prejudice to them.
9. In the case WP(C) 4425/2025 (The Union of India and 6 others
Vs. Jagdev Kumar), the respondent, who was a Junior Engineer with the N.F.
Railways, had been allowed to participate in a selection process for recruitment
to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Government of Bihar, on the
basis of a NOC issued by the N.F. Railways. On being selected for appointment
as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Government of Bihar, the respondent had
submitted an application to the N.F. Railways to accept his technical resignation.
However, the same had been declined on the ground that there were paucity of
Officers in the N.F. Railways. The respondents had approached the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati, for a direction to be issued to the N.F.
Page No.# 6/7
Railways to accept the technical resignation tendered by the respondent therein.
The learned Tribunal had allowed the same and a challenge was made to the
direction passed by the learned Tribunal vide WP(C) 4425/2025. However, this
Court vide order dated 18/08/2025 dismissed the WP(C) 4425/2025, by holding
as follows :-
“8. There is no denial of the fact that the Railway Administration had granted “No
Objection” Certificate to the respondent for appearing in the selection process of the
Government of Bihar and that paucity of officers in a particular organization would be
no ground to forestall the career prospects of an employee, who would like to pursue
his career in a different organization. If no rules have been violated and there is no
contention of the respondent claiming any lien over the post in the Railways even after
he assumes the office of the post on which he has been appointed in a different
organization, there is no reason why the same should not be allowed to him.
9. We, therefore, find that the CAT was absolutely justified in directing the petitioners
to accept the technical resignation of the respondent.
10. Finding no merit in this writ petition, we dismiss it.”
10. On considering that the facts of this case and the facts of WP(C)
4425/2025 are similar, we do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Tribunal in Original
Application No. 040/173/2025 (Sri Om Prakash Ranjan Vs. Uion of India &
Others), Original Application No. 040/171/2025 (Sri Pramod Kumar Tanti Vs.
Union of India and others) and Original Application No. 040/192/2025 (Sri
Bimalesh Kumar Bimal Vs. Union of India and others).
11. As the private respondents’ application for being recruited outside the
N.F. Railways had not been withheld by the writ petitioners and as NOC had
been issued to them to allow them to participate in the selection process, the
Page No.# 7/7
petitioners cannot now be allowed to withhold the technical resignations
tendered by the private respondents, as the same is arbitrary.
12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link