Apex court quashes engagement of 121 lawyers by Railways

THE SUPREME Court has affirmed an order quashing the engagement of 121 lawyers by the Railways on its panel, and termed the department’s notification as “illegal”.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar dismissed the appeal moved by the Railways in its bid to protect the empanelment of 121 lawyers to argue for the department in Allahabad High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal.

“So you pick people from air... only 11 apply for a job and but you pick 110 others from air... and you already know these 110 are excellent people,” the bench on Monday told Additional Solicitor-general Maninder Singh, who represented the Railways in its appeal.

The bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Sanjay K Kaul, added that there was no justification forthcoming on how 121 people were considered for the job while those on the panel of the department for several years were snubbed without reason.

It noted that the Railways had no records to show that a selection process, including an interaction with the candidates, was actually carried out before engaging these lawyers.

Besides, there was nothing to show why, as against the existing 44 lawyers representing the Railways, the panel was increased to the strength of 121, it added.

“Sorry... the High Court is right. You cannot select people like this. No ground for interference is made out in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed,” said the bench, throwing out the appeal by the Railways.

With the dismissal of the appeal, the Allahabad High Court order on quashing the November 2016 notification by the Railways gets confirmed and a fresh panel of advocates would now have to be prepared in accordance with relevant circulars.

According to the circulars, the Railway Board cannot go ahead with empanelling lawyers unless the names have been recommended by the Zonal Railways.

It came down heavily on the Railways for making appointments “on mere whims and fancies” of the legal adviser and not based on material which could reflect the basis for selection.