XXX -OA No. 525 AND 526 OF 2009 INCOMPLETE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH : BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 525 AND 526 OF 2009

DATED THIS THE .........DAY OF .............., 2011

HON'BLE SHRI N.D. RAGHAVAN ... VICE-CHAIRMAN

HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ... MEMBER (A)

1. C.S. Jayaramaiah,
S/o Sannathimmaiah,
aged about 40 years,
Working as Shunter,
O/o the Controller of Chief Crew Controller/
Satellite Goods Terminal, Bangalore Division,
South Western Railway, Bangalore.
(Applicant in OA No.525/2009)

2. S.E. Bharath,
S/o S.M. Eshwarappa,
aged about 37 years,
Working as Grade II Shunter,
O/o the Chief Crew Controller/
Satellite Goods Terminal, Bangalore Division,
South Central Railway, Bangalore.
(Applicant in OA No.526/2009) ... Applicants

(By Advocate Shri M.R. Achar)

Vs.

1. Union of India
represented by General Manager,
South Western Railway Zone, Hubli.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Western Railway, Bangalore.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
(Respondents in both the O.As)

4. Balakrishna Medi Shetty, Major,
Senior A Loco Pilot/ working under the
Controller of Chief Crew Controller,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
5. M.G. Shyam Singh, Major,
Loco Pilot/Shunter Gr.II,
working under the Controller of
Chief Crew Controller,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
6. Dommaraju Murali, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
7. Tharappa, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
8. Vangavolu Rama Rao, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
9. M.V. Ajith Kumar, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
10.R. Ravinder, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
11.Santhosh Ubhayakar, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
12.K. Jitendra Kumar, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
13.Srinivasa Rao Kadali, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
14.Koteswara Rao Chilka, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
15.Vijayakumar Mahaur, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
16.G. Eswaraiah, Major,
Working as LP/Shunter Gr.II.
(All 6 to 16 are working under the
Controller of Chief Crew Controller,
Satellite Goods Terminal,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
17. M.D. Naseem Ali, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
18. P. Easwaran, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
19. H.C. Jayaram, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
20. V. Krishnanand, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
21. K. Abhed, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
22. A.A. Sahaya Ramesh, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
23. P. Deepu, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
24. D. Rajkumar, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
25. V. Rajashekar, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
26. K. Rajendra Prasad, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
27. J. Girirao, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
28. D.R. Malayadri, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
29. Chintada Sathyanarayana Rao, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
30. Jagathkari Gopal Rao, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
31. P. Madhavan, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
32. V. Bhaskar, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
33. P.K. Krishnan, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
(Respondents No.17 to 33 are working as Sr. ALP,
under the Controller of
Chief Crew Controller,
Satellite Goods Terminal,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
(Respondents No.4 to 33 are respondents in O.A. No.525/2009)
34. Keshappa, Major,
Working as Shunter,
35. Suresh Kuppannavar, Major,
Working as Sr.ALP
36. Rakesh Suresh Koshti, Major,
Sr. ALP
(Respondents 34 to 36 are working
under the Controller of
Chief Crew Controller,
Satellite Goods Terminal,
South Western Railway,
Bangalore Division, Bangalore.
37. Anandakumar, Murmu, Major,
Working as Sr.ALP,
38. S. Shivashankar Naik, Major,
Working as Sr. ALP
39. Gajendra Meena, Major,
(Respondents No.37 to 39 are
working under the control in the
Office of the Chief Crew Controller,
South Western Railway, Bangalore Division,
Bangalore. ... Respondents
(Respondents No.34 to 39 are respondents in OA No.526/2009)

(By Advocate Shri N.S. Prasad, for R-1 to 3 and
Shri Izzhar Ahmed for R-4)

O R D E R

Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :


O.A. No.525/2009 and 526/2009 have similar facts and position. Hence, they are disposed of by one judgment. For the sake of convenience, the matrix of O.A. No.525/2009 are referred hereunder.

2. This O.A. is filed on 30.11.2009 for grant of promotion wherein Respondents No.1 to 3 are official respondents while Respondents No.5 to 33 are private respondents who have not filed their reply statement nor are they represented by anyone. Respondent No.4 who is a private respondent represented by Advocate Shri Izzhar Ahmed who has filed his reply statement, but not present at the time of hearing of the case.

3. The reply of official respondents No.1 to 3 was filed on 9.2.2010 wheeas the reply of Respondent No.4, is filed on 18.3.2010. In the meantime, MA 65/2010 was filed by the applicant on 27.1.2010 submitting that although the Registry has served notices on Respondents No.19 to 32, neither the acknowledgment nor the cover has been returned to the Tribunal though 30 days are over. Therefore, it is requested that these notices should be deemed to have been served. The M.A. was allowed on 24.2.2010.

4. Thereafter, M.A. 284/2010 was filed on 19.7.2010 on behalf of official respondents No.1 to 3 seeking permission that while they have appointed Respondents No.4 to 33 pending the finalisation of this OA, they would seek permission to appoint yet another 49 employees. However, in view of the objection statement filed by the applicant to this M.A., and looking into the facts brought out by the applicant, it appears that the respondents have not pursued the request made in the said M.A. In any case, they did not press it at the time of hearing and the MA stands dismissed. On conclusion of hearing, the case was reserved for orders on 14.9.2010. However, on 28.9.2010, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, the case was again posted "For being spoken to" and the arguments was finally concluded on 7.12.2010 and the orders were reserved for pronouncement. On that day learned counsel for R-4 was present and heard.

5. Before we go into the details of the case, we would like to mention that Respondents No.1 to 3 have stated in para 3 of the reply statement that the applicant had not impleaded all the employees who were promoted by the office order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-A/5). However, the learned counsel for applicant has clarified that he has impleaded only those in the list who are his juniors. Thereafter the respondents have not pursued this point at the time of hearing.

6. After discussing these preliminaries we come to the main issue. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was first appointed as Khalasi on 11.4.1990 at K.R. Puram Loco Shed and promoted from time to time as Assistant Loco Pilot, Senior Loco Pilot and Shunter. His next promotion would be as Goods Driver-Gr.II for which the feeder cadre are Shunter as well as Senior Loco Pilot, and Assistant Loco Pilot. In the normal course, the promotion to the post of Goods Driver-Gr.II is by way of conducting written examination and there is a selection process.

7. On 20.12.2007, the Railway authorities issued notification to fill up the post of Goods Driver Gr.II (Annexure-A/1), in which the applicant in OA No.525/09 (Shri C.S. Jayaramaiah) was included as eligible for the process of selection as borne out at Sl.No.51. Subsequently, in view of the VI Pay Commission recommendations, on account of which some merger of grades took place, the Railway Board decided as a one time measure to give exemption from passing the written examination and issued notification RBE 161/09 (Annexure-A/2) dated 3.9.2009 instructing that the posts of Goods Drivers-Gr.II be filled up by the method of seniority-cum-suitability rather than through written examination and selection. The said instruction was made as a one time exemption to all the vacancies that existed as on 31.8.2009. Prior to this, a written test and assessment of merit based suitability was proceeded with through a duly constituted Selection Committee but the panel list, if at all prepared of the selected candidates, was not published. The applicant claims that Respondent No.3, after getting the Railway Board instructions dated 3.9.2009 hurriedly and contrary to the Railway Board instructions, published the panel of selected candidates on 17.9.2009, which was further modified on 20.11.2009 (Annexures-A/4 and A/5). The applicant's name does not figure in both the lists. It is his claim that he did not secure the required marks in the written examination, not because of any inadequacy on his part, but for the simple reason that while writing the written examination, he answered Part 'B' of the said question paper on the question paper itself instead of on a separate paper. He claims that he has a meritorious record as could be seen from Annexures-A/6 and A/7 which are the results of Promotional Course for Asst. Loco Pilots/Shunters to Loco Pilots and Refresher Course Loco Pilots respectively. However, qualifying or otherwise in the exam is irrelevant in view of RBE 161/09. Despite so, in view of his non-qualification, Respondents No.4 to 44 were promoted ahead of him as per Office Order dated 23.11.2009 Annexure-A/8. Amongst them those at Sl. No.1 to 35 except Sl.No.24 are senior to him and he has no objection to their promotion. Hence, the present OA is made to challenge the orders at Annexures-A/5 and A/8, on the ground that in view of Railway Board instructions, his non-qualifying in examination is of no consequence and he should be given promotion ahead of those at Sl. No.24 and at Sl. No.36 onwards.

8. The main grounds on which this OA is filed are :
(i) The impugned notification at Annexure-A/5, which purports to declare the results of the qualifying examination violates the Railway Board instructions in RBE 161/09 dated 3.9.2009 in which the Board had decided and ordered that, as a one time exemption, the post of Goods Driver Gr.II for all the vacancies existing as on 31.8.2009 would be filled by seniority and not by selection.
(ii) It is the claim of the applicant that similar situation arose in the neighbouring Madurai Division, who issued the selection notification on 7.9.2009 but, in view of Railway Board instructions dated 3.9.09, cancelled the said notification on 19.10.2009 and thereafter proceeded to fill up the posts of Goods Driver-Gr.II as per the Railway Board order by giving one time exemption from qualifying examination (Annexures-A/10, A/11 and A/12), and giving promotion as per seniority-cum-suitability.

9. In the reply statement filed on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 3 and Respondent No.4 as well as in the arguments at the time of hearing, four main points are made:-
(I). Efforts of the department from 26.12.2007 till 23.11.2009 (Annexure-A/8) for filling up the posts as per earlier Rules:-
The list of eligible candidates who could pass the qualifying examination was notified on 26.12.2007 which is long before the instuctions of the Railway Board. Since the said list did not include other employees who were working as ALPs (Assistant Loco Pilots) in the Pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-, those ALPs approached this Tribunal in O.A. No.244/2008, who directed the Railway authoritie to consider the ALPs also for the selection examination. Accordingly, the ALPs having 2 years service and of 60,000 Kms. foot plate experience were also alerted for the examination. After such a compliance, the O.A. was closed on 21.1.2009. Thereafter the office proceeded for completing the examination formalities for the ALPs and this examination was treated as in continuation with the examination under the previous notification at Annexure-A/1 dated 26.12.2007 in which the applicant had appeared but did not qualify. All these took time. After that, the combined result came to be declared vide Annexure-A/8 dated 23.11.2009. These details are given at paras 4,5,6,10,14 and 19 of the reply statement. The respondents argued that since the efforts of the department to fill up the vacancies were continuing from 26.12.2007 and was an ongoing process, therefore, the same cannot be stalled by the notification in RBE 161/09 of Railway Board dated 3.9.2009. The efforts of the department resulted in issuing promotion orders at Annexure-A/5 dated 20-11-2009 and Annexure-A/8 dated 23.11.2009 and they over-ride the RBE 161/09 of the Railway Board, being part of a continuum.

We do not accept this argument. It is possible that various divisions of Railways would be at different stages of process for filling up of vacancies by promotion. Without differentiation, all those processes have been stayed by RBE 161/09 for a one time solution to the complicated effect of merger. Hence, we agree with the applicant that non-publication of the list before 03.09.2009 makes the list as null and void as soon as RBE 161/09 is published.

(II). On the question whether the Railway Board circular applies to the category of the applicant and to what extent, the respondents have relied on the earlier circulars viz., RBE 127/08 dated 23.9.2008 and RBE No.70/2009 dated 24.4.2009 (Annexures-R/5 and R/6) which both dwell on the subject of merger of grade promotion within the same grade pay. It is the contention of the respondents at paras 7, 8 and 9 of the reply statement that these two earlier circulars of the Railway Board have categorically stated as below:
"2. However, this will not apply to the cases of promotion of running categories viz., Loco Pilots and Guards, where in the existing channel of promotion will continue till further orders (Annexure-R/5).

It is also the contention of the respondents at paras 11, 12 and 13 of the reply that the notification at Annexure-A/1 was meant for filling 106 vacancies that were notified at the end of 2007, i.e., as on 31.12.2007 and the said notification was issued on 26.12.2007. Hence, RBE 127/08 will apply being for the purpose of vacancies as on 31.12.2007. The RBE No.161/09 dated 3.9.09 which is meant for vacancies as on 31.8.2009 is not applicable.

We do not agree with this contention above beause the wording of notification RBE 161/09 dated 3.9.2009 clearly states as under:
"2. The matter has since been considered by the Board. The views of organized labour have also been taken into account. Since the issue of laying down revised classification and mode of filling up may take further time, therefore, it has been decided that as a one time exemption, promotion to all vacancies as existed on 31.08.2009, may be made as indicated in the enclosed statement. The following methodology may be adopted for effecting the promotions in question. (Annexure-A/2).

Thus, it is clear that RBE 161/09 definitely and conclusively instructs to ignore the instructions in RBE 127/08 dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-R/5) and RBE 70/09, dated 24.04.09 (Annexure-R/6), which the respondents want to rely upon in paras 7, 8 and 9. It is further noted that RBE 161/09 makes a distinction between vacancies as existed on 31.8.09 and those arising thereafter from 1.1.09 onwards. It is pertinent to note that this notification was issued on 3.9.09. It takes into account all erstwhile vacancies for the purpose of one-time exemption irrespective of whether they arose in 2007 or in 2008.

(III) The applicability or otherwise of the procedure followed by Madurai Division of Railways:-
The applicant has quoted a similar situation that has occurred in Madurai Division and claims at para 4(vii). that the said Madurai Division also had completed the entire procedure for examination for the purpose of appointment to the post of Loco Pilots (Goods) Gr.II and had been ready with their final list and promotion order on 7.9.2009. However, on being pointed out that the procedure was not in accordance with the RBE 161/09, dated 3-9-2009, the Madurai Division cancelled the notification dated 7.9.09. The respondents claim that this example cannot be applied to the case of Bangalore Division because it is neither a guiding principle nor a standard for selection procedure. Further, the selection proceedings of Madurai Division dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure-A/9) was cancelled due to procedural lapses and subsequently the vacancies were filled up in terms of RBE 161/09.

This contention of the respondents is also not acceptable. If it was only for procedural lapses, the Railway Board would have directed the Madurai Division to rectify the procedural lapses and complete the selection process as per the earlier existing rules. The very fact that the Railway Board had not done so is ample evidence that the Board did not mean the selection procedure to be anything other than seniority-cum-suitability as a one time relaxation as mentioned in RBE 161/09.

(IV) Since 44 people have been promoted vide Annexure-A/8 on 23.11.09, whether their reversion at this stage in order to accommodate the applicant would be lawful:-

A question was raised by the learned counsel for respondents that while Annexure-A/5 gives a list of 91 people selected for promotion on the basis of result in examination and Annexure-A/8 gives a list of 44 people actually promoted, the applicant has impleaded only 30 out of them. However, this has been explained by the learned counsel for the applicant that Sl.No.1 to 35 except for Shri Balakrishna Medi Shetty who is appearing at Sl. No.24 and impleaded as Respondent No.4 are all seniors to him and hence he has no grievance if they are promoted. Therefore, his grievance relates only to persons at Sl. No.24 and at Sl. No.36 to 44 in Annexure-A/8 and those who are further juniors in the list of empanelled people at Annexure-A/5, and likely to be promoted ahead of him if Annexue-A/5 is not quashed.

Hence, the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he should be placed at Sl.No.36 above Shri Shyam Singh and the order at Annexure-A/8 should be modified to the extent of quashing the position of Respondent No.4 from Sl.No.24 and placing him at whichever place he belongs to as per his seniority, but in any case below the applicant. He submitted that Respondent No.4 who is far junior is placed at Sl.No.24 for the reason that he has been graded Outstanding in the examination notified on 26.12.2007, but that examination is no longer relevant..

In so far as applicant in OA No.526/09, Shri Bharath is concerned, he belongs to ST category and hence has impleaded only six persons who also belong to ST category and who are his juniors on 31.8.2009. Thus, he prays to be put above S.No. 45 in Annexure-A/5.

To bear upon this question whether the above two accomodations could be made, for the applicants in 525/2009 and 526/2009 the learned counsel for Respondents has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors.Vs. Devi Ratan & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) SCC 417. He agreed that the question therein was regarding persons who would have been promoted earlier under un-amended Rules, but for an interim order passed by the Supreme Court. It was held finally that they were to be ranked senior to those who were deemed to have been promoted from subsequent dates under new rules. The learned counsel claims that in the instant case also since the 44 people promoted vide Annexure-A/8 have already received their promotions as per the earlier rules which came to be changed on 3.9.09, they would continue to remain senior to the applicant.

We find that the details of the cited case go beyond what has been stated by the learned counsel for respondents. In that, the group of appellants and the group of respondents before the Apex Court were in the feeder cadre of Excise Inspectors. They became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Excise under the provisions of U.P. Assistant Excise Commissioners Service Rules 1992 which stood amended with effect from 10.10.1994 and the criteria for promotion changed from "merit" to "seniority". The appellants claim promotion on the basis of "merit". They had filed Writ Petition No.1130/1994 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the selection process which was proposed to be carried out on seniority basis under amended rules on the ground that the vacancies pertained to the earlier period when 'merit' rule was in vogue. The High Court vide order dated 1.2.1995 held that the vacancies that existed prior to 10-10-1994 must be filled up under the un-amended rules, i.e., on the basis of merit. In the SLP against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the Apex Court vide order dated 30-10-1995 passed an interim order permitting the State authorities to make the promotion as per 1994 amendment Rules (i.e., on seniority basis), however, clarifying in the said interim order itself, that in the event of SLP being dismissed, the respondents would be reverted to the lower post. As a result of interim order 61 Excise Inspectors stood promoted on the basis of seniority subject to final outcome of the SLP. The Apex Court finally dismissed the petition by order dated 19-8-1998, but the State authorities did not revert the promoted officers till the DPC of 19-12-1998. In the said DPC, 42 vacancies were to be filled up, but only 30 candidates were available on the criterion of merit. These 30 are the appellants of the cited case. After completing the merit based exercise, the remaining 12 vacancies were selected on seniority basis and the second list was prepared by the 2nd DPC held on 22-1-1999. However, the State Government issued a consolidated promotion order on 12-7-2000, the effect of which was to cancel the earlier promotion order of 61 seniority based promotees and replace it by the new orders in which the first 30 candidates were on merit basis and the remaining 12 were on seniority basis.

The seniority list dated 12-7-2000 was challenged in the High Court, who, by their order dated 11-4-2002 quashed the new promotion list and directed the State Government to prepare a seniority list placing the appellants below the respondents. It is this decision of the High Court which was set aside by the present citation in which it was finally held that since the vacancies in question had arisen before 10-10-1994 and the I.R. of the earlier SLP was subject to the final outcome which went in favour of merit – based promotion as per earlier rules, hence the appellants who were promoted on merit basis as per 1992 Rules would be protected in their seniority against the respondents, who got their promotion on basis of seniority as per the amended Rules after 10-10-1994.

In our considered opinion, the cited case is to be distinguished from the present case. In the cited case, the question all along was about the method of filling up vacancies that existed before 10-10-1994 and whether the amendments made on 10-10-1994 could be applied to them. In the instant case, there is no change of the existing Rules, but only a one time exemption that was necessary in view of special circumstances arising out of the mergers that took place on account of VI Central Pay Commission recommendation. This is not a case where earlier Rule 'X' changes into a new Rule 'Y' but only a case in which the earlier Rule 'X' continues throughout with the only exception that is applied as a one time exemption, due to the merger of grades effected by the VI Central Pay Commission recommendations. Hence, we agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the citation does not apply to the present case. We also observe that,
(a) Unlike in the cited case, the selection as per older rules was not stayed but had become infructuous in the light of Railway Board's RBE 161/09, dated 3.9.09, which came into existence before the selection list was published by the respondents on 20.11.2009 (Annexure-A/5).
(b) The whole list need not be quashed. Only the applicants can be accommodated by giving higher seniority as per their position in the seniority list and by giving them consequential benefits.

In view of the above, we hold that the OA deserves to be allowed. Annexure-A/8, dated 23-11-2009 stands modified to the extent that applicant be put above Shri Shyam Singh presently at Sl.No.36 and Respondent No.4 should be shifted from his previous position at Sl.No.24 to a position below the applicant.

As far as applicant in OA No.526/2009, he does not challenge his senior ST candidates in Annexure - A5 namely those at Sl.No. 1 and 11 but only those at Sl.No.45 and further below at 79, 80, 81, 84 and 88. Hence he stands placed immediately above Keshappa who is presently at Sl.No.45.

The Respondents No.1 to 3 should issue new notification giving above effect, and also fix their salaries and giving other consequential benefits as per law within 2 months from this decision. No order to cost.


(LEENA MEHEHDALE) (N.D. RAGHAVAN)
MEMBER (A) VICE-CHAIRMAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT IS THIS ???// CHECK FROM FILE
(iii) The Railway Board letter RBE No.70/09 dated 24.4.09 states as below:-
"..... in cases where two or more existing scales of pay A" and "B" or "A" "B" and "C" have been merged into a single grade pay "X" or where an existing scale say "A" has been upgraded to allot the grade pay, which has been allotted to existing next higher grade say "B" in the hierarchy, in such cases selections and promotion from the existing lower scales to the existing higher scale(s), shold not be made promotions from existing lower scale to the existing higher scale "A" should likewise cease. .... .....

2. ........

3. However, this will not apply to the cases of promotion of running categories viz., Loco Pilots and Guards, where in the existing channel of promotion will continue till further orders.



"Railway Board Circular letter No.E(NG)1-2008/PM1/15, dated 03.09.2009 addressed to the General Managers (P), All Indian Railways & Production units.

Sub: Implementation of recommendation of 6th CPC – Merger of grades-
Revised classification and mode of filling up of non-gazetted posts.
---

2. The matter has since been considered by the Board. The views of organized labour have also been taken into account. Since the issue of laying down revised classification and mode of filling up may take further time, therefore, it has been decided that as a one time exemption promotion to all vacancies as existed on 31.08.2009, may be made as indicated in the enclosed statement. The following methodology may be adopted for effecting the promotions in question.

Scheme for filling up of vacancies as existed on 31.08.2009
Revision of Classification of Posts consequent upon merger of grades
as a result of Implementation of Vith Pay Commission Recommendations

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
1. Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electrical)/3050-4590/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

50% Promotion, 50% plus shortfall against promotion quota by direct recruitment.

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Selection – PB 1 (1900)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

50% (Promotion General Selection) Rectt./Entry grade (General Selection)

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
2. Sr. Assistant Loco Pilot (Diesel/Electrical)/4000-6000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Non-Selection – PB 1 (2400)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion Non-selection/Seniority-cum suitability

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
3. Loco Pilot (Shunting), Gr.II /4000-6000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Non-Selection – PB 1 (2400)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion Non-selection/Seniority-cum suitability

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
4. Loco Pilot (Shunting), Gr.I /5000-8000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Non-Selection – PB 2 (4200)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion Non-selection/Seniority-cum suitability

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
5. Loco Pilot (Goods), Gr.II /5000-8000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion General Selection,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Selection – PB 2(4200)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion Suitability with prescribed benchmark.

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
6. Loco Pilot (Goods), Gr.I /5500-9000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Non-Selection – PB 2 (4200)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion suitability with prescribed benchmark.

I. Category/Existing Scale:-
7. Loco Pilot (Passenger), Gr.II /5500-9000/-

II. Existing mode of filling up:-

100% Promotion,

III. Existing classification and Pay Band

Selection – PB 2 (4200)

IV. Revised Position:- Revised Mode of filling up Revised Classification

100% Promotion Suitability with prescribed benchmark.

V. Remarks:- A candidate should possess prescribed footplate experience. Passing of Aptitude test, wherever prescribed and pre-promotional course/training consisting of written test, will be mandatory in case of promotion to the posts in grade pay Rs.4200 wherever mode of promotion of has been prescribed as Suitability with prescribed benchmark.

2010 (1) SCC 417 – Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan & Ors.

"2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the appellants and the respondents in these cases were appointed as Excise Inspectors under the provisions of the U.O. Excise Service (Class II) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter called as "the 17970 Rules"). The parties became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Excise under the said 1970 Rules. The criteria of promotion for the post of Superintendent of Excise and for the higher post of Assistant Excise Commissioenr (hereinafter called 'AEC') had been "merit" under the provisions of the U.P. Assistant Excise Commissioners Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called as "the 1992 Rules). The said Rules stood amended w.e.f. 10-10-1994 and the criteria for promotion was changed from "merit" to "seniority subject to rejection of unfit".

3. The appellant Amarjeet Singh along with some other Excise Inspectors filed Writ Petition No. 1113 (SB) of 1994 before the Allahabad High Court challenging the selection process for promotion under the 1992 Rules. The High Court vide judgment and order dated -2-1995 held that the vacancies which had come into existence prior to 10-10-1994 i.e., the date of amendment, be filled up as per the unamended Rules i.e., on the basis of "merit" and not the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit".


4. Being aggrieved, the State of U.P. preferred a Special Leave petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 30-10-1995 passed an interim order permitting the State authorities to make promotions as per the 1994 Amendment Rules but it was subject to the result of the petition as this Court made it clear that if the petition was dismissed, the respondents would be reverted to the lower post from which they would be promoted. In view of the said interim order of this Court, sixty-one Excise Inspectors stood promoted, subject to the final outcome of the special leave petition. This Court dismissed the said special leave petition vide order dated 19-8-1998 in limine.

6. The State Government issued the Order dated 15-5-1999 reverting all Excise Inspectors promoted on 6-12-1995 under the interim order of the Court and gave notional pomotion with retrospective effect to the appellants as well as to all the reverted officers/respondents. As a consequence, a seniority list dated 12-7-2000, was issued, wherein the appellants were placed over and above the respondents.

12. In Rule 3(1) of the 1992 Rules, the recruitment year is defined as under:
"3. (1) Year of recruitment means a period of two months commencing from the first day of July of calendar year."

34. ..... Thus, they are entitled for equitable relief, as the effect of the interim order of this Court was required to be neutralised. The appellant who had been promoted with an earlier date, thus, are bound to be senior than the respondents who had been promoted with respect from a later date. ......

35. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-2002 is set aside. The seniority list dated 12-7-2000 is directed to prevail and fresh seniority list dated 26-7-2000 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.