Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sharad Mehta vs M/O Railways on 18 August, 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.4367/2015
with
OA No.3943/2015
Order Reserved on: 13.02.2017
Pronounced on: 18.08.2017
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI, CHAIRMAN
HON'BLE MR. K.N. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
OA-4367/2015
Sharad Mehta,
Chief Track Engineer,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
-Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajit Singh and Shri Shashi Ranjan)
VERSUS
1. The Chairman,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
New Delhi.
3. The General Manager,
Western Railways,
Church Gate, Mumbai.
-Respondents
2
OA No.4367/2015
with
OA No.3943/2015
(By Advocate: Shri Rajender Nischal, Shri R.N. Singh and Shri
A.K. Srivastava)
OA-3943/2015
1. Shri Sanjiv Bhutani,
GGM/UT, RITES (on deputation)
S/o Shri M.G.Bhutani,
Age 52 years,
Flat No.3, Block No.D-3,
RITES Flats
Ashok Vihar, Phase 3,
New Delhi-110052.
New Delhi.
2. Shri Ram Prakash,
CEE (Con) ER, Kolkata
S/o Late Shri Girija Shankar,
Age 52 years,
6B, Rail Minar,
1/1A, Judges Court Road,
Alipore,
Kolkata-700027
3. Shri A.K. Gupta,
CME (PCM) COFMOW, Delhi
S/o Late Shri R.K. Gupta,
Age 52 years,
3/3 Block B, Sector 13,
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Shri G.K. Gupta,
CME/G, IROAF Delhi
S/o Shri Jai Prakash Gupta,
Age 52 years,
15-A, Railway Board Officers Flats,
Chanakyapuri,
Ashok Vihar, Phase 3,
New Delhi-110021.
-Applicants
(By Shri C. Harishankar, Sr. Advocate and Shri S. Sunil and
Shri P.K. Singh, Advocates)
VERSUS
3
OA No.4367/2015
with
OA No.3943/2015
1. Union of India,
Through : The Chairman,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. Ministry of Railways,
Through The Secretary,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road
New Delhi-110011.
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rajender Nischal, Shri R.N. Singh and Shri
A.K. Srivastava)
ORDER
Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A):
These Original Applications have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As common issues are involved, we have decided to hear and dispose them off by a common order.
2. Succinctly, the grievance of the applicants is twofold. Firstly, they were empanelled for being posted as Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) in the Railways but by the time their turn came for posting as such, the DRM panels in which their names had figured, expired. Secondly, since they have not worked as DRM, their future prospects for being considered for posting as General Manager (Open Lines) and 4 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 Member/Chairman of the Railway Board have completely withered away.
3. Brief facts of these cases are as under:
OA No.4365/2015
3.1 The applicant belongs to 1985 batch of Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE) and is currently posted as Chief Track Engineer, Western Railway, Mumbai, under the respondent no.3. His grievance is that he has been denied the opportunity of being considered to be posted as DRM, as the shortlisting of officers for DRM for year 2015-16 has been done on the basis of eligibility of age of 52 years as on 01.07.2015 and that such shortlisting would also deny him an opportunity of being selected for appointment as General Manager (GM). For an officer to be eligible for inclusion in the DRM panel for the year 2015-16, he should not have exceeded the age of 52 years as on 01.07.2015. The applicant contends that the respondents have, without any reason or explanation, changed the cut off date for determining the suitability to 1st July of the year instead of 1st April. Due to the change of the cut off date the applicant has been rendered ineligible for empanelment as DRM as he 5 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 would have crossed the age of 52 years as on the cut off date of 01.07.2015.
3.2 It is further stated that the respondents in their counter-
affidavit in OA No.2752/2010 titled R.K. Verma v. Chairman, Railway Board have clearly said that the upper age of 52 years was taken as 1st April of the year as decided by the Railway Board in administrative interest. Aggrieved by denial of his empanelment as DRM in the 2015-16 panel, the applicant has filed this OA, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and post him as DRM at the next immediate available opportunity.
3.3 In support of the reliefs prayed for, the applicant has primarily raised the following two grounds:
a) The cut off date for shortlisting the officers for DRM for the year 2015-16 has been arbitrarily changed from 01.04.2015 to 01.07.2015, which has rendered the applicant ineligible as he would have crossed the age of 52 years as on 01.07.2015.
b) Several IRES officers posted as DRM have been continued beyond their normal tenure of two years, which has delayed the posting of officers of 1985 batch, to which the applicant belongs, as DRMs. Thus the applicant turn never 6 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 came for being posted as DRM albeit had been empanelled for the post in the earlier years.
OA No.3943/2015 3.4 The applicant No.1 and 2 belong to 1984 batch of Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE) whereas applicant no.3 and 4 belong to 1985 batch of Indian Railways Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME). During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants informed that the applicant no.4 has since withdrawn his name from the array of parties and hence the OA is maintained only in respect of applicants no.1-3. 3.5 The applicants have stated that the Railway Board had issued Annexure A-1 guidelines for posting of DRMs based on the meetings of the Railway Board held on 05.01.1989 and 11.01.1989. The guidelines are reproduced below:
"Guidelines prescribed by Board for posting of DRMs, as amended from time to time.
Board at their meetings held on 05.01.89 and 11.01.89 considered at great length the policy and postings of DRMs. It was decided that:-
(i) Posting of DRMs should be made by considering the suitability of SAG officers of all departments batch by batch. From each department, from one batch year, a maximum around six (06) officers should be picked up for posting as DRMs;
(ii) Officers to be posted as DRMs should have generally 'very Good +. They should have been assessed as 7 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 'outstanding' at least twice and should have a minimum of 2 clearances for posting as DRM including one clearance in the latest ACR or should have a minimum of 3 clearances including 1 in the latest 2 ACRs;
(iii) Normally, at one time, officers of one department should not occupy more than 18 posts of DRMs;
(iv) Normally, officers with around 22-26 years Group 'A' should be selected for posting as DRMs, on recognition of the fact that the task is arduous and the relatively younger officers would be preferable for the same. However, officers with longer service who have age in their favour and have missed the chance of working as DRM should also be considered for posting as DRM;
(v) The normal tenure of a DRM should be around 2-3 years;
(vi) while posting officers as DRMs, care should be taken to see that in each batch those with excellent record and age in their favour should be posted to heavier Divisions so as to gain valuable experience.
2. An upper age of 52 years should be observed for posting of officers as DRMs.
3. Officers who refuse posting as DRMs should not be considered for such posting for a period of two years from the date of refusal.
4. One SA Grade officers should be posted as DRMs." 3.6 It is stated that the Railway Board have formulated new guidelines (Annexure A-2) for posting of the DRMs and presented it before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition Nos.3490/2014 and 3511/2014 by way of an affidavit dated 07.08.2014. These guidelines have not been commented upon or approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The new guidelines stipulate that shortlisitng of DRMs would cater to the requirement arising during the period of 1st 8 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 July of the year to 30th June of the following year irrespective of the date of its approval.
3.7 It is further stated that in the list of officers shortlisted for the posts of DRM for the year 2010-11 (Annexure A-3), the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 were at serial nos.99 and 102 respectively. Posting of officers as DRMs from the said DRM panel of 2010-11 continued till 27.04.2012, i.e., the DRM panel 2010-11 was kept operational for about two years.
3.8 It is also stated that in July, 2012, DRM panel for the year 2011-12 (Annexure A-4) was prepared. In this panel, the applicant no.1 was at serial no.88. This panel was valid from 1.7.2011 to 30.6.2012 but was actually operated on 14.07.2012, i.e., after expiry of its period of validity. 3.9 In March, 2013, shortlisting of officers for DRM panel for the year 2012-13 (Annexure A-5) was done. The applicant no.1 was at serial no.83, and applicant no.2 at serial no.86. The validity of this panel was from 1.7.2012 to 30.6.2013. This panel was operated on 20.07.2013 by placing 21 officers as DRM from this panel. Thus, the panel was operated after its expiry period. The 2012-13 was operated for only 07 months.
9OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015 3.10 It is further stated that in November 2013, the respondents decided to scrap DRM panel for 2012-13 and prepared a fresh DRM panel for the year 2013-14 on 08.11.2013 (Annexure A-6) by shortlisting new candidates in the DRM panel for the year 2013-14. The applicant no.1 was at serial no.7, applicant no.3 at serial no.15 and applicant no.4 at serial no.16. The validity of this 2013-14 panel was from 1.7.2013 to 30.6.2014 but it was kept alive for 15 months since two posting orders were made from this panel vide office order dated 20.12.2013 for 16 DRMs and dated 18.02.2015 for 8 DRMs.
3.11 The respondents thereafter prepared DRM panel (Annexure A-4) for the year 2014-15. The applicant no.1 was at serial no.4, applicant no.2 at serial no.5, applicant no.3 at serial no.9 and applicant no.4 at serial no.10. This panel, however, was operated only for four months and only one posting was made from this panel on 18.02.2015 for 21 DRMs.
3.12 The applicants in para-4.8 of the OA have submitted that the respondents have not been following any uniformity in the preparation of yearly panels for DRMs. The DRM panels for many years have been approved with lot of 10 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 delays. It is stated that the DRM panel for the year 2009-10 got delayed by 188 days, 2010-11 by 219 days, 2011-12 by 379 days, 2012-13 by 268 days, 2013-14 by 130 days and 2014-15 by 232 days. Only the panel for the year 2015-16 has been prepared, and approved in time and made operational from its due date i.e. 01.07.2015. 3.13 It is stated that the applicants are seriously prejudiced due to lack of uniformity in making the panels. The grievance of the applicants is that due to inordinate delays that took place in approving the DRM panels for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, their prospects of becoming DRMs have completely withered away as they have crossed the age of 52 years as on 1.7.2015. Their contention is that if these DRM panels were to be approved as per the due date(s) and the officers of their service posted as DRMs were recalled after completion of their normal tenure of two years, these applicants would have got opportunity of being posted as DRMs. It is further stated that due to their not being posted as DRMs, their prospects of becoming GM (Open Lines) and Member/Chairman, Railway Board have been completely jeopardized. Accordingly, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the instant OA, seeking a direction to the respondents to post them as DRMs, 11 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 whenever they issue the next posting for DRMs in terms of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 09.05.2014 in OA- 4366/2013 titled Sanotsh Kumar Agarwal & Others v. Ministry of Railways.
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply. As directed by this Tribunal vide interlocutory orders dated 09.02.2017 and 10.02.2017 the respondents have filed two affidavits dated 10.02.2017 and 13.02.2017 respectively. The important averments made in the counter-reply of the respondents are as under:
i) The posts of DRM are ex-cadre posts in Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) PB-4 Rs.37600-67000+grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. The officers belonging to 08 Group 'A' Railway Services, viz. IRSE, IRTS, IRSME, IRSEE, IRSSE, IRAS, IRSS, IRPS are eligible for posting as DRMs. As per the direction contained in order dated 09.05.2014 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA-4366/2013 and OA No.270/2014 and in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC no.3490/2014 and 3500/2014 dated 27.05.2014, revised policy guidelines for shortlisting have been issued after obtaining the approval of the Minister of Railways on 10.07.2014 (Annexure A-2). 12 OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015
ii) There are 68 posts of DRMs and every year about 25-30 slots fall vacant after the incumbents complete their tenure of two years. An officer posted as DRM continues to be in the same grade, i.e., SAG and he does not get any additional financial benefits.
iii) As per the new guidelines, a DRM panel remains valid from 1st July of the year to the 30th June of the following year irrespective of the date of its approval. In case the requirements upto 30th June are not filled up, such requirements will be filled up from the same panel which has been made for such requirement, even after 30th June.
iv) Only those officers are considered for empanelment who do not cross the age of 52 years as on 1st July of the year in which the panel is to be made.
v) Normally, tenure of a DRM is around 2-3 years.
vi) The applicants in OA-3943/2015 were shortlisted for the DRM panel 2014-15 but their turn did not come against the vacancies upto 30.06.2015. All of them had crossed the age limit of 52 years as on 1.7.2015 and consequently could not be considered for empanelment for DRM panel 2015-16. 13 OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015
vii) Regarding the applicant in OA-4367/2015, it is stated that he was shortlisted for DRM in the years 2012-13, 2013- 14 and 2014-15 but his turn never came for posting as DRM. He became ineligible for empanelment for the DRM for the year 2015-16 as he has crossed the age of 52 years as on 1.7.2015.
viii) The applicants' right for being considered for being posted as DRMs has not been violated. They were shortlisted but could not be posted as DRMs because of the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The shortlisting in the DRM list does not give any right for being posted as DRM. The applicants' presumption that posting as DRM will enable them to reach the apex level of the Railways hierarchy is misconceived; the factual position is that DRM posting is one of the factors for further appointment as GM (Open Lines) and above. It is stated that non-posting as DRM does not make them ineligible for promotions to higher grades in their respective cadres.
5. The applicants have filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in which besides reiterating the averments made in the OA have averred as under: 14 OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015
i) The respondents have admitted that working as DRM is an essential requirement to become GM (Open Lines) and above. Hence the applicants who have not got posted as DRM will not be eligible for GM (Open Lines) and thus they cannot be considered for the 17 posts of GM (Open Lines) out of 26 posts of GMs.
ii) The respondents' claim that after the formulation of the new guidelines for shortlisting and posting of DRMs, they have brought uniformity in the matter, is erroneous. As a matter of fact, even after issuing the new guidelines, several abnormalities have been committed by the respondents in the postings of the DRMs, which are as under:
"i) Panel of 2014-15 was closed in just 4 months (Approved on 18.02.15 and closed on 30.06.15) and only one posting order of 21 DRMs issued from this panel on 18.02.2015. The Applicants belong to this panel.
ii) 21 Posts of DRMs for vacancy period Apr.'13 to May'13 filled from Panel of 2012-13 on 20.07.2013 were filled from panel of 2015-16 instead of panel of 2014-15 upon completion of normal tenure of 2 years of DRMs.
iii) Posting of Shri N.K. Sachan, an IRTS 1986 Batch officer on panel of year 2014-15 at s.no.3 as DRM/Asansol vide order no.E(O)III-2015/TR/69/U dated 18.02.15 ahead of his senior Smt. Seema Kumar who was on panel at s.no.2.
Officer having DOB 16.12.62 wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2015-16 and hence not ever become DRM.
iv) Posting of Smt. Chandralekha Mukherjee, an IRTS 1986 Batch officer on panel of year 2014-15 at s.no.4 as DRM/Waltair vide order no. E(O)III-2015/TR/69/N dated 27.03.15 vice Sh. Vivek Kumar, an IRSME officer, who had given refusal to join at Waltair. This post should have been 15 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 filled up from IRSME cadre as per extant rule but Smt. Chandralekha Mukherjee, an IRTS officer got the favour. She (DOB 07.12.62) wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2015-16 and hence not ever become DRM.
v) Posting of Sh. Sudhir Kumar, an IRSSE 1985 Batch officer on panel of year 2015-16 at s.no.34 as DRM/Jabalpur vide order no. E(O)III-2015/TR/258-K dated 01.07.15. Though only one officer from IRSSE cadre returned to parent cadre but posting orders for two officers were issued from panel of year 2015-16. Officer having DOB 03.02.64 wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2016-17 and hence not ever become DRM.
vi) Posting of Sh. A.K. Sinha, an IRPS 1986 Batch officer on panel of year2015-16 at s. no. 63 as DRM/Nanded vide order no.E(O)III-2015/TR/258-L dated 01.07.15 even though no officer from IRPS cadre returned parent cadre. Officer having DOB 22.12.63 wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2016-17 and hence not ever become DRM.
vii) Posting of Sh. Puneet Chawla, an IRSSE 1985 Batch officer on panel of year 2015-16 at s. no.35 as DRM/Ajmer vide order no. E(O)III-2016/TR/123-R dated 23.04.16 though no officer from IRSSE cadre returned to parent cadre. Officer having DOB 14.08.63 wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2016-17 and hence not ever become DRM.
viii) Posting of Sh. Atul Gupta, an IRSS 1985 Batch officer on panel of year 2015-16 at s. no.55 as DRM/Mysore vide order no. E(O)III-2016/TR/123-S dated 22.04.16 though no officer from IRSS cadre returned to parent cadre. Officer having DOB 13.08.63 wouldn't have appeared on DRM panel of 2016-17 and hence not ever become DRM."
6. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 8th, 9th, 10th and 13th February, 2017. During the course of the arguments on 9th February, 2017, Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a note containing procedure for shortlisting and posting of DRMs. In the said note under the caption 'Promotion' the following statement is made:
16OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015 "Working as DRM has always been a pre-requisite for consideration for the posts of GMs (OL) - total 16, and working as GM (OL) has also been a pre-requisite for being considered for the posts of Members in Railway Board." This note was an unsigned note and hence we directed Shri R.N. Singh to file an affidavit of Railway Board to that effect. Pursuant to the said direction, an affidavit was filed on the next date, i.e., on 10.02.2017 by Mr. Felix Kerketta, Joint Secretary(Gaz.)-II, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, in which it has been affirmed as under:
"2. "Working as DRM has always been a pre-requisite for consideration for the posts of GMs (OL)- total 16, and working as GM (OL) has also been a pre-requisite for being considered for the posts of Members in Railway Board."
7. The applicants produced two gazette notifications. In one gazette notification, Resolution of Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated 16.08.2016 'Policy for making appointment to the posts of General Managers and equivalent in the Indian Railways' has been notified. Para-4.2 of this notification reads as under:
"4.2 There will be only two (02) categories of General Managers, namely General Managers (Open Line)/GM(OL) and General Managers (Non-Open Line)/GM(NOL). The Selection Committee shall also recommend whether a particular officer mentioned in the panel may be considered suitable for Open- Line (OL) or non-Open-Line (NOL) posts, taking into account whether the officer has worked as Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) and his overall service record. Posts of GM (OL) shall be open only for officers who have worked as DRM for a minimum tenure of 15 months. The post of GM (NOL) will 17 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 be available to all officers regardless of whether they have worked as DRM or not."
7.1 In the second notification, another Resolution also dated 16.08.2016 'Norms for filling up of the posts of Members of Railway Board, Financial Commissioner/Railways and Chairman Railway Board' has been notified. Para 4 (a) of this notification reads as under:
"4. Officers to be considered for the posts of Member(s) of Railway Board and Financial Commissioner should:
(a) have been empanelled for General Manager (Open Line) posts and have worked in any General Manager (OL) or General Manager equivalent;
7.2 The learned counsel for the applicants besides underscoring the averments in the OAs stated that the Tribunal in its judgment in OA No.4366/2013 with OA No.2370/2014 in the case of Santosh Kumar Agarwal and Others v. Ministry of Railways has noted as under:
"14. The fact is that DRMs post is a very important post for a railway officer and denying that post to anybody who would otherwise be eligible is definitely hurting the service prospects of that railway officer. This becomes more significant because unless a person is posted as DRM, he cannot be considered for 16 posts of GM (OL), thus restricting his promotional prospects. It is, therefore, necessary that the railway adopts transparent and fair procedure regarding their policy by posting an officer as DRM. What appears from the facts of the case is that the railway has not been very consistent. Sometimes shortlists have been kept live for more than a year and in the present case, within five months of issuing promotion order from 2012-13 panel, much before the completion of the year, a fresh panel is created and posting order of 16 persons promoting them as DRM is issued. The arbitrariness of the action is clear from the fact that when the 18 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 matter was to be heard on the prayer of consideration of interim relief, respondents quickly issued the posting orders of 16 DRMs out of the 2013-14 panel on 20.12.2013 before the date fixed i.e. 24.12.2013. This is not how a model employer like the Ministry of Railways should have acted. While we accept that nobody junior to the applicants has been picked up from the IRSE panel of 2012-13, on account of this rush job, several persons junior to the applicants as a result of getting into 2013-14 panel got the job of DRM, thus prejudicing the applicants career prospects. It is a fact that there have been cases where officers eligible on the date of panel got the promotion as DRM when they have crossed the age of 52 years. So when 2012-13 panel was live on 20.12.2013, the applicants should have been posted as DRM instead of the four IRSE junior officers who have been promoted from 2013-14 panel."
7.3 The Tribunal in Santosh Kumar Agarwal (supra) has held that pre-closure of the 2012-13 panel in less than one year of its approval was illegal and that all vacancies that arose during that period ought to have been filled up from the said panel. It was further stated that since postings order dated 20.12.2013 from the next year panel, i.e., 2013-14 had already been issued during the pendency of the said OA, the Tribunal directed that the applicants in those OAs be posted against the next available vacancies of DRMs even though by 20.12.2013, when the next posting order had been issued, all the applicants before it had crossed the age of 52 years. Accordingly, it was argued that the case of the present applicants is entirely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar Agarwal (supra) and hence they may also be granted identical reliefs.
19OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015
8. Per contra, Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar Agarwal (supra), inter alia, had directed the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) to draw a clear cut policy of posting of DRMs and the said judgment of the Tribunal was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.3490/2014 and 3500/2014. Accordingly, the respondents have issued revised policy guidelines for shortlisting & posting of DRMs on the Railways vide Annexure A-2. Shri Singh said that in the revised guidelines, it is clearly stated that irrespective of the date of its approval, the panel will be uniformly valid from 1st July to 30th June. In case the requirements are not filled by the 30th June, such requirements will only be filled from the same shortlist/panel, which has been made for such requirement, even after 30th June. He also stated that the curtailment of the validity period of the 2014-15 panel to just four months was on account of the new Annexure A-2 guidelines having come in vogue. Shri Singh emphatically argued that the anomaly that had occurred in the past in the postings of DRMs were due to the DRM panels in those years getting approved on different dates and that too after long delays. These delays caused insurmountable problems and gave room to avoidable 20 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 controversies. He said that the new guidelines (Annexure A-
2) have nibbed in bud all such problems/controversies.
9. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings and documents annexed thereto. Admittedly, the post of DRM does not come in the promotion hierarchy of any one of the Railway Services. Officers in SAG of 08 services mentioned in para 4 (i) (supra) are eligible for posting as DRMs. It is also now an admitted fact that working as DRM for a minimum period of 15 months is a pre-requisite for an officer to be considered for being posted as GM (Open Lines). Further, only those officers who have worked as GM (Open Lines) can be considered for posting as Member/Chairman, Railway Board. This position is well established and confirmed by the two Resolutions dated 16.08.2016 on the subjects 'Policy for making appointments to posts of General Managers and equivalent in the Railways' and 'Norms for filling up of the posts of Members of Railway Board, Financial Commissioner/Railways and Chairman Railway Board' and published in the gazette notification of the Central Government. The officers, though empanelled as DRMs, but fail to get posted as DRMs due to various factors, lose permanently for being considered for the post of GM (Open 21 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 Lines) and Member/Chairman, Railway Board. They, however, can get promotions in the hierarchy of their own departmental cadres. They can also be posted as GMs of various units but not as GMs (Open Lines).
10. In the earlier guidelines of the respondents for shortlisting and posting of officers as DRMs, the date of approval of the DRM panel was a crucial factor. This was due to a stipulation in the guidelines that such panel would become operational from the date of its approval. It was happening more often than not that the DRMs panels were not getting approved in time and thus their normal validity period from 1st April to 31st March was invariably getting disturbed. As a result, several officers, even though empanelled as DRMs in successive years, could not be posted as DRMs. Many such officers took to legal recourse by approaching this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court. Acting on the directions of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar Agarwal (supra), the respondents have framed the new guidelines for shortlisting and posting of DRMs (Annexure A-
2). As noticed hereinabove, as per the Annexure A-2, the date of approval of the DRM panel has been made inconsequential. The panel would hereafter remain valid from 1st July to 30th June, irrespective of its date of approval. In the light of these 22 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 new guidelines, most of the inconsistencies/controversies that were occurring in the past, would automatically get eliminated since the panels hereafter are made immune to their approval dates.
11. Coming to the individual cases of the applicants in these OAs, it is noticed in terms of the new guidelines, the DRM panel for the year 2015-16 had already been prepared and acted upon. All these applicants had crossed the age of 52 years as on 1-7-2015 and thus had been rendered ineligible for inclusion in the panel for the year 2015-16. Indisputably, they were empanelled in the previous 4-5 years but by the time their turn could come for posting as DRM, the validity of those panels had expired. It is further to be noted that DRM panel prepared for the next year, i.e., 2016-17 must have also been prepared and would be in operation. No doubt, these applicants have suffered on account of 2011-12 panel having been operated for 15 months instead of normal tenure of 12 months and the panel for the year 2014-15 getting curtailed to just four months instead of normal tenure of one year. Their career prospects have been grievously hurt. However, if the relief prayed for by these applicants is granted and respondents are directed to post them as DRMs, even though they have now crossed the age of 52 years, instead of 23 OA No.4367/2015 with OA No.3943/2015 resolving the controversy for good, it would only confound the matter. The officers who would be legitimately entitled for being posted as DRMs as per the panels for the years 2015- 16 and 2016-17, would get adversely affected and would be forced to take to legal recourse. Hence, in the larger interest of the Railways and its officers, it would be prudent to allow the DRM panels prepared as per the new guidelines, which have been prepared as per the observations of this Tribunal as noticed hereinabove, to operate in a normal fashion without being burdened with the controversies of the past. Certain events are fait-accompli. Notwithstanding the individual rights, it is imperative to ensure the smooth functioning of institution.
12. In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras and taking into account the future functional interests of the Railways as well as the career prospects of the Railway officers, in general, these OAs are dismissed. However, we would like to observe that due to the vicissitude of the approval processes involved in the past in the matter of approval of the DRM panels, these officers have suffered for which, at this juncture, one can only sympathise with them. 24 OA No.4367/2015
with OA No.3943/2015
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (Justice Permod Kohli) Member (A) Chairman 'San.'