Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
M H Chauhan vs M/O Railways on 15 July, 2025
:: 1 :: O.A.No.217/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
OA No.217 of 2015
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
Reserved On : 11.06.2025
PronouncedOn :15.07.02025
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Shri Madhavraj Chauhan
S/o. Shri Hanumanprasad Chauhan
Aged 29 years,
R/O.: 453/57, Khokhra Rly. Colony,
Maninagar,
Ahmedabad. 380008
2. Shri Manoj sinh
S/o. Shri Chhotelal Sing,
Aged 27 years,
R/o. 581/1, Khokhra Rly. Colony,
Maninagar, Ahmedabad. 380008
3. Shri Sanjay Kumar
S/o. Shri Vinod Kumar
Aged 28 years,
R/o. 456/81, Khokhra Riy. Colony,
Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008
4. Shri Sujitkumar Tiwari
S/o. Shri Vrajbhusan Tiwari
Aged 29 years,
R/o. Quater. No. 10, SLM Road,
Vatwa Ahmedabad-382440.
5. Shri Mukulji
S/o. Shri Harinarayan Singh
Aged 33 years,
R/o. Quater. No. 35,
SLM Road,
Vatwa Ahmedabad - 382 440.
6. Shri Gopal Patel
S/o. Shri Mohanbhai Patel
Aged 33 years, SEEMA 2025.07.16
SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A.No.217/2015
R/O. At Kabhai Muvada,
Po. Ajarsumada,
Ta: Kapadvanj,
Dist Kheda - 387 610.
7. Shri Jalpesh Patel
S/o. Shri Arvindbhai Patel
Aged 25 years,
R/o. Sadavwal, Vill: Pethapur,
Dist- Gandhinagar - 382 610.
8. Shri Rupesh Charan
S/o Shri Narayan Prasad
Aged 33 years,
R/o. 573/12,
Khokhra Rly. Colony,
Maninagar,
Ahmedabad - 380 008.
9. Shri Sanjaykumar R.
S/o. Shri Ram Khilavan
Aged 25 years,
R/o. 463/13, Khokhra Rly. Colony,
Maninagar,
Ahmedabad - 380 008.
10 Shri Dhawal Patel,
S/o. Shri Kanubhai Patel
Aged 26 years,
R/o. At & Po. Thol, Khantvas
Ta; Kadi,
Dist- Mehsana-382 715. ......Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms.S.S.Chaturvedi)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Notice to be served through,
General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400 020.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Ashrwa,
Ahmedabad-380 0019.
SEEMA 2025.07.16
SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30'
:: 3 :: O.A.No.217/2015
3. Kalpeshkumar Ramanlal Chavda
4. Chahatrapl S/o. Gulabsingh
5. Vinayak S/o. Rajnikant Shah
6. Abhinandan Kumar Pathak
7. Sudhir Kumar S/o. Basudev Shah
8. Rajeshkumar Vishwakarma
9. Praveen Sagar S/o. Ragvendra Prasad
10. Rajeshkumar S/o. Balchandra Yadav
11. Anilkumar Bharti S/o. Shashikant Bharti
12. Rajan Ranjan S/o. Satyadeo Pandey
Respondent no. 2 to 12 working under
DRM (E) ADI,
Notice Serve through,
Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Ashrwa,
Ahmedabad-380 0019. .... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr.V.K.Singh )
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Being aggrieved with the impugned Memorandum issued vide EM/1031/1 Asstt. II Vol.V dated 16.10.2014 by DRM (E) Ahmedabad (Annexure-A/1) consequential Order No.EM/839/1/3 (Sr.Asstt.) dated 31.03.2015 for fixing the seniority of the applicants herein, filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief:-
SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.217/2015 "8.1 To admit this application;
8.2 To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum issued vide Office Order no. EM/1030/1 Asstt. II Vol.V Dated 16/10/2014 Passed by DRM (E) ADI (Annexure A/3) with consequential order no. EM/839/1/3 (Sr.Asstt.) Dated 31.03.2015 Passed by DRM (E) ADI.
(Annex. A/1).
8.3 To direct the respondents to issued the revised seniority accordance with date of appointment.
8.4 To call for the records and proceedings pertaining promotion; to the seniority and 8.5 Any other order thought fit be passed;"
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
2.1 The applicants were appointed on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as "ALP") in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + G P Rs.1900. The date of appointments of the applicants namely, Shri Madhavraj Chauhan, Shri Manoj Sinh, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri Sujitkumar Tiwari, Shri Mukulji Shri Gopal Patel, Shri Jalpesh Patel, Shri Rupesh Charan, Shri Sanjaykumar R. and Shri Dhawal Patel who joined the services on 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, 10.01.2012, 19.12.201, 26.12.2011, 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, and 31.01.2012 respectively.
Similarly the dates of appointments of the private respondents namely, Vinayak S/o. Rajnikant Shah, Abhinandan Kumar Pathak Sudhir Kumar S/o. Basudev Shah, Rajeshkumar Vishwakarma, Praveen Sagar S/O. Ragvendra Prasad, Rajeshkumar S/o. Balchandra Yadav, SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.217/2015 Anilkumar Bharti S/o. Shashikant Bharti, Rajan Ranjan and Kalpeshkumar Ramanlal Chavda, who joined the services on 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 21.02.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 16.07.2012 and 07.01.2012 respectively.
2.2 Therefore, it is clear from the statement that althought the private respondents are shown senior than the applicants in seniority list published dated on 16.10.2014. Applicants further submitted that in the seniority list dated on 16.10.2014, the applicants were placed at Serial Nos.341, 336 414, 284 317, 377, 346, 314, 287 and 301 respectively, whereas the private respondents were shown at Srl.
Nos.12,13,14,15,17,18,19,21,22 and 24. Hence, the applicants were downgraded in the seniority shown above. Due to this illegal actions of the respondents, applicants would further lose the chances of consequential promotions / upgradations for the post of Sr.ALPs.
2.3 Being aggrieved by the above fact, the applicants filed representation on 14.11.2014 requesting the respondent authority to revise the seniority list as per the date of their appointment as mentioned in IREM paras 302 and 303.
2.4 Further, the applicants also contended that respondent No.2 had issued suitability list vide Memorandum No.EM/1026/1/2 (Running) dated 30.03.2015 for the promotion to the post of Sr.ALP in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200+GP 2400 (Annexure-A/2). As per the suitability list, the respondents filled up the total 336 posts of senior ALPs wherein 243 posts were SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.217/2015 kept for Un Reserved; 57 posts for SC and 36 posts for ST.
2.5 Subsequently, the respondent No.2 had issued promotion order vide No.EM/839/1/3/(Sr.Asstt.) dated 31.03.2015 for promotion to the post of Sr.ALPs in Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200+GP of Rs.2400 (Annexure-A/1) wherein respondents had illegally applied reservation policy and promoted in excess the SC/ST candidates, which affected the promotion avenues of the applicants adversely.
2.6 The applicants also mentioned that they filed representation dated 13.04.2015 against the illegal action of the respondent, notified by aforementioned order dated 13.04.2015 (Annexure-A/6). Therefore, in view of the above, the applicants submitted that their application may be considered on the following grounds:-
3. The applicants contended that the applicants had passed the initial training before the private respondents because they have been sent for training in the earlier batches than the private respondents (Annexure-A/7). It was noticed that the respondents had failed to publish the seniority of ALPs in accordance with the IREM Rules 302 and 303.
3.1 Further, the applicant described that as per Rule 302, "Seniority in initial recruitment grades unless specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade." Similarly the provisions as stipulated in para 303 (A) states that "Candidates who are sent for initial training in Training Schools will rank in Seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.217/2015 obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post. Those who join the subsequent post courses and those who passed the exmination will rank junior to those who had passed the examination (Annexure-A/10)." Therefore, based on the above provisions of IREM as laid down under Rules 302 and 303, as such, the seniority list dated 16.10.2014 is required to be quashed and set aside.
3.2 Subsequently, the respondents had issued the promotion order for the post of Sr.ALP without correcting the seniority list vide order dated 31.03.2015, which is also liable to be quashed and set aside.
3.3 The applicant further, stated that the respondents had also applied erroneous policy at the time of issuing the promotion order dated 31.03.2015. The respondents issued the promotion order as per the Railway Board Circular 126/2010 dated 01.09.2010. and consequential order affected the applicants for further promotion and status. They also referred that the Railway Board Circular dated 01.09.2010 had based on the DoP&T Letter No.36012/45/2005-Estt (Res.) dated 01.08.2010, which had been quashed and set aside by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.13218/2009 vide order dated 15.07.2011. Therefore, on the basis of the above fact, the Railway Board Circular dated 01.09.2010 is also required to be declared void (Annexure-A/11).
3.4 The applicants also referred the judgment of K.Manorama vs Union of India in Civil Appeal No.2379 of 2005 which is based on the post base roster wherein, it was stipulated that the seniority cum merit had been SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.217/2015 affected at the time of appointment in open competition which is not applicable in the case of promotion. Further, the applicants also relied upon the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and they submitted that the respondents had violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violated the statutory provisions of law.
4. Per contra, the respondents filed reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicants in the Original Application. Respondents submitted that before replying to the averments made by the applicants, it is appropriate to mention that because of the typographical mistake committed by the respondents in the seniority list, the applicants had quoted the date of recruitment as the date of appointment which needed to be clarified as "what was the date of appointment and what was the date of recruitment which is required to be considered while preparing the seniority list." Respondents submitted some facts wherein it was stated that Railway Board Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "RRB") vide letter dated 16.09.2011 bearing No.E(R&T) 890/8/4 allotted list of 50 candidates for the post of Apprentice Assistant Loco Pilot (DSL/Elect.) (hereinafter referred to as "Apprentice ALP") in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 GP of Rs.1900 to Ahmedabad Division (Annexure-R/1) and consequently, RRB-Ahmedabad through Head Quarter Office, Churchgate vide letter dated 19.09.2011 bearing as No.E/(R&T) 890/8/4 allotted another list of 510 candidates for the post of Apprentice ALP in the scale of Rs.5200-20200 Grade Pay of Rs.1900 to Ahmedabad Division (Annexure-R/1), wherein, if, combined the aforesaid two lists made total of 560 candidates for SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 9 :: O.A.No.217/2015 Apprentice ALP (Annexure-R/2). Out of 560 candidates, 436 were of General/Unreserved Category; 44 were of ST; 25 were of SC and 55 were of OBC. After receiving above stated panel of candidates of Apprentice ALP, Respondent No.2 issued call letters to all the candidates. All were directed to report to Ahmedabad Division with their positive Medical Test and Police verification which was mentioned at the date of recruitment for the post of Apprentice ALP on a stipend of Rs.5830+1900 and usual allowances as admissible at the relevant point of time. The respondents further contended that as per Chaper- XIX of Indian Railway Establishment Manual(hereianfter referred as IREM) Vol-II provides the Rules applicable to apprentices other than those governed by the Apprentice Act, 1961. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"1901. The rules applicable to apprentices other than those governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961, recruited on the railways are contained in the following paragraphs.
1902. An Apprentice means a person deputed for training in a trade or business with a view to employment in Government service, who draws a stipend at monthly rates from government during such training but is not employed in or against a substantive vacancy in the cadre of a department (Rule 103 (4) RI).
1903. Recruitment - Recruitment of Special Class Apprentices on the railways is made through the union Public service Commission. Recruitment of all other Apprentices (other than trade apprentices) is made through the Railway Recruitment Board. The rules regarding the recruitment of apprentices other than special class Apprentice on railways are contained in Section B of Chapter I. SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 10 :: O.A.No.217/2015 1904. Training Apprentices are required to undergo a prescribed course of training and to pass such examinations as may be-laid down in their respective syllabi. They do not become eligible for appointment to working posts until they have successfully completed their training.
1905. Stipend.-(1) During the period of training apprentices are entitled to such stipend and allowances as may be prescribed for them from time to time.
(2) Permanent and temporary railway servants, who fulfill the terms and conditions of recruitment to various categories of apprentices as applicable to outsiders, may be allowed to compete for appointment as apprentices along with outsiders but no relaxation of educational qualifications will be made in their favour. Relaxation in respect of age may, however, be allowed upto a ceiling limit of 30 years. However, in posts for which a Degree or Diploma in the Engineering is prescribed as basic qualification, the upper age limit will be raised by 5 years. (Bd's No. E(NG) 141-73 RR 1-3 of 10/12-4-73). They will not be required to severe their connection with the railway before taking up the apprenticeship. Permanent Railway servants on appointment as apprentices in any category may be granted pay equivalent to the rate of stipend laid down for that particular category of Apprentices or their substantive pay as admissible to them from time to time whichever is higher. Temporary railway servants on appointment as apprentices in any category may be granted pay equivalent to the rate of stipend drawn by the Apprentices in their category. Both permanent and temporary railway servants appointed as apprentices will also be granted house rent and compensatory (city) allowances during the period of their SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 11 :: O.A.No.217/2015 apprenticeship on the basis of their pay as apprentices.
For this purpose, the place from where they proceeded on training should be treated as their headquarter. House rent allowance will be given even if they have been given Hostel accommodation at their place of training. This will be with reference to place from where he went on training. HRA with reference to place of training or 3/4th the normal rate may be given if they rent accommodation for their family at that place, if otherwise admissible."
Therefore, from the above facts, it is clear that apprentice who are eligible to be posted on a working post, they have to undergo mandatory training before their posting. He also relied on the dictum laid down in the case Prafulla Kumar Swain vs Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors reported in 1993 Supp (3) 181 wherein the differentiation between recruitment and appointment was clarified.
4.1 In the present case, in Column 6 of Annexure-A/3, date of Recruitment is wrongly notified as Date of Appointment, which was subsequently rightly notified as Date of Regular posting. Therefore, the right of claim of the applicants' on the basis of date of recruitment is not maintainable (Annexure-R/3).
4.2 Respondents also referred the Rules 302 and 303 of Chapter-III of IREM Vol-I, which shows that seniority would be in the order of merit obtained in the examination held by Training schools. Rule 303 is reproduced hereunder:-
"303 The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board or by any other recruiting authority should be determined as under :-
SEEMA 2025.07.16
SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30'
:: 12 :: O.A.No.217/2015
(a) Candidates who are sent for initial training
to Training Schools will rank in Seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post. Those who join the subsequent courses and those who pass the examination in subsequent chances will rank junior to those who had passed the examination. In case, however, persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter-se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel of RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regulating the inter-se seniority provided such persons pass the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt.
(Authority Board's letter 89/SR6/32(PNM) dated 19-3-93) No. E(NG)I-."
4.3 The respondents further mentioned that a block of 560 candidates were allotted to Ahmedabad Division; after the verification and reporting to Ahmedabad Division, they were sent for theoretical training in batches as advised by the Zonal Training School and subsequently after passing the training, they were sent for practical training at SBI/RTM/TKD/BRCY.
4.4 Respondents also referred the order dated 14.07.2009 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.34 of 2007 in the case of Shri Rajesh Gohil & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., wherein in compliance of the order, the respondents constituted a committee to decide the norms for finalizing the seniority list which laid down certain principles required to be followed in determining the seniority of ALP. As per the recommendations SEEMA of the 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 13 :: O.A.No.217/2015 Committee, 50% weightage was given to the marks secured by the candidates in the Zonal Training School and 50% of the marks secured in the practical training were taken for consideration of seniority. Accordingly, the seniority list notified on 16.10.2014 (Annexure-A/3) is valid as per extant rules and in accordance with the principles laid down by the above stated committee. Therefore same is not required to be reconsidered (Annexure-R/4).
4.5 The respondents also referred the Railway Board's letter dated 01.09.2010 bearing No.99-E(SCT)1/25/13 (RBE No.126/2010) for giving promotion to the SC/ST candidates according to their merit and seniority (Annexure-R/5).
4.6 It was also submitted that for the post of Sr.ALP (DSL/Elect) in PB Rs.5200-52200+GP of Rs.2400 is concerned, it was also stated that a total of 336 posts were assessed comprising of 243 vacancies were kept for UR posts; 57 for SC posts and 36 for SC posts, and all the working ALPs in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200 with a GP of Rs.1900 were examined for suitability on the basis of seniority position on the latest seniority list notified on 16.10.2010 wherein two ALPs including the respondent No.10, Shri Rajesh Kumar were found unsuitable and 298 employees were promoted provisionally as Sr. ALPs on "as is where is basis" vide Memorandum No.EM/839/1/3 (Sr.Asstt.) dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A/1), against unreserved post. Rest of the employees were promoted as per the Reserve points of the roster, and all the remaining posts were vacant due to non availability of employees from the reserved community. SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 14 :: O.A.No.217/2015 4.7 Respondents also contended that the applicants were deliberately misguiding this Tribunal by way partially quoting Rule 303(a) of IREM, whereas complete para has been extracted hereinabove, wherein it was stated that the Candidates are sent for training as apprentice in batches, they were treated as one group of RRB panel and seniority is assigned to all candidates in one batch as a whole group as per the performance at the training school and practical training. Accordingly, seniority of all the 560 candidates were assigned and notified on 16.10.2010 which is in accordance with the IREM Rule 303(a) and laid down principles stated by the above stated committee in compliance of the order of this Tribunal. Therefore respondents prayed that applications of the applicants lack merit and same may be dismissed.
5. Applicants also filed rejoinder wherein he had denied the reply filed by the respondent. Additionally, he has also stated that it was colorable exercise for the respondent authority to state that there was a typographical error in stating the date of appointment in place of the date of recruitment. It was also submitted that the applicants are directly recruited from the RRB candidates and not apprentices, as such, whatever stated in reply is not applicable in the present case.
5.1 He also counter the arguments given by the respondents with reference to Hon'ble Apex Court judgment wherein description on difference between recruitment and appointment was given.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the material available on records, SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 15 :: O.A.No.217/2015 guidelines, circulars and provisions of IREM Rules 302 and 303.
7. It is an admitted fact that applicants were initially appointed in two batches as ALPs, total of 560 candidates were allotted to Ahmedabad Division. It is also a fact that seniority is decided according to the provisions stipulated in Rule 303 (a) of IREM. For clarity, Rule 303 is reproduced hereunder:-
"303 The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board or by any other recruiting authority should be determined as under :-
(a) "Candidates who are sent for initial training to Training Schools will rank in Seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post." Those who join the subsequent courses and those who pass the examination in subsequent chances will rank junior to those who had passed the examination. In case, however, persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter-se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel of RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regulating the inter-se seniority provided such persons pass the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt.
(Authority Board's letter 89/SR6/32(PNM) dated 19-3-93) No. E(NG)I-."
8. It is also a fact that respondents had constituted a committee to decide the policy of the seniority in compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 16 :: O.A.No.217/2015 No.34 of 2007 dated 14.07.2009 which was not contradicted by the applicants. The committee had laid down detailed procedure in order to decide the seniority as per the provisions of IREM 303 (a) that interalia includes assigning 50% weightage to the marks secured in the Zonal Training School and 50% weightage obtained in the practical training.
9. It is also an admitted fact that seniority list as published on 16.10.2014 vide notification No.EM/1030/1 Astt. Vol. V dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-A/3) was prepared "according to the provisions laid down in IREM Rule 303 (a) and the Parametres provided after recommendation of the committee constituted in compliance of the Order of this Tribunal." after assigning 50% weightage for the marks obtained in Zonal Training School; 50% weightage is given to the marks secured in practical training and after combining both performances, a consolidated seniority list was published.
10. The argument of the applicant is not acceptable that seniority is decided according to the date of appointment which in our considered view is a complete deviation than what is stipulated under Rule 303(a) of the IREM. In para 5.3 of the Original Application of the applicant, it was categorically stated that according to Rule 303 (a) of IREM, the candidates who are sent for initial training in Training school will rank in seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of training period before being posted against working post. Those who joined subsequent courses and those who passed the SEEMA 2025.07.16 SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30' :: 17 :: O.A.No.217/2015 examination in subsequent chance will rank junior to those who had passed the examination.
11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find the need of interference and illegality in the seniority list as notified on 16.10.2014 and subsequently, promotion to senior ALPs as notified vide notification No.EM/1026/1/2 dated 30.03.2015.
Therefore, this OA lacks merit and same is dismissed. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No Order as to Costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV
SEEMA 2025.07.16
SANTHOSH 14:32:06+05'30'