Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Paladi Nagaiah vs South Western Railway on 20 June, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00434/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 13.06.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 20.06.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Paladi Nagaiah,
Aged 53 years,
S/o Subbanna (late), Loco Pilot (Mail),
South Western Railway,
Yeshwantpur R.S.&P.O.
Residing at: No. 12, Ganapathy Nagar,
Acharya College Road, Chikbanawar,
Bengaluru 560 090,
2. Gafoor Ahmed Shareef,
Aged 54 years,
S/o Md. Shareef, Loco Pilot (Mail)
South Western Railway,
Residing at: No. 73, 2nd Cross, Kaveri Layout,
Kareguddadahalli, Chikbanawar, Bengaluru 560 090
3. S. Balachandar,
Aged 54 years,
S/o R. Sathya Narayana, Loco Pilot (Mail),
Power Controller, Control Office/Bengaluru
South Western Railway,
Residing at: No. 775, 7th Main Road,
Nagarbavi, 9th Block, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 072 .... Applicants
(By Shri T.C. Govindaswamy, Advocate - through video
conference)
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shree Bangalore
k 2025.06.25
11:39:12
+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by the General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Headquarters Office, Hubballi 520 020
Dharwar Dt., Karnataka
2. The Chief Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Headquarters Office, Hubballi 520 020
Dharwar Dt., Karnataka.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division,
Bengaluru 560 023.
4. The Railway Board (Ministry of Railways)
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001
Represented by the Secretary.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Co-ordination),
South Western Railway,
Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru 560 023
6. The Chief Crew Controller,
South Western Railway, Bengaluru City R.S.
Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru 560 023.
7. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Loco Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Krishnarajapuram R.S.&P.O., Bengaluru Dist. 560 036
8. Shri A.S. Prasad, Chief Loco Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Krishnarajapuram RS.&P.O., Bengaluru 560 036
9. Shri Santhosh Ubhayakar, Chief Loco Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Krishnarajapuram R.S. & P.O., Bengaluru 560 036
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shree Bangalore
k 2025.06.25
11:39:12
+05'30'
3
OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Shri D. Rajkumar, Chief Loco Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Krishnarajapuram R.S.&P.O.,
Bengaluru 560 036
11. Shri Srinivas Kallapalli, Chief Loco Inspector,
South Western Railway,
Krishnarajapuram R.S.&P.O.,
Bengaluru 560 036 ....Respondents
(By Shri Sayed S. Kazi, ACGSC for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6,
Shri Pradeep B. represents Shri K.Srinivasa for Respondent Nos. 7
to 11)
ORDER
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure-A13 Memorandum bearing No. ELECT-
TRO/V/RNG/581/07/2022/42 dated 05.07.2022, issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same to the extent it includes respondents 7 to 11 and excludes applicants;
(ii) Declare that Annexure-A5 orders of the Railway Board RBE No. 80/2021 dated 01.11.2021 is without jurisdiction and ultravires Annexure-A3 orders of the Railway Board and hence, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional and set aside the same;
(iii) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be considered and included in Annexure-A13 kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE panel/promotion order with all consequential benefits of promotion as Chief Loco Inspector w.e.f. the date on which persons included in Annexure-A13 were promoted with all consequential benefits arising therefrom;
(iv) Award costs of and incidental to this application;
(v) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The applicants, being aggrieved by the empanelment and promotion of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 as Chief Loco Inspectors, have preferred this OA. Succinctly stated the facts as narrated by the applicants are that they are Loco Pilots (Mail) in Level 6 of the pay matrix of the Bangalore Division of South Western Railway, the particulars of which are shown as under:
Sl. Name Appointment Date of
No. date as promotion
Assistant as Loco
Loco Pilot Pilot/Mail
1. Paladi Nagaiah 09.11.1989 2006
2. Gafoor Ahmed 06.02.1990 11.01.2012
Shareef
3. S. Balachandar 01.02.1989 14.03.2009
3. Pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2021 issued by the 5th respondent - the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer for filling of 12 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspectors (Unreserved-10, Scheduled Caste-1 and Scheduled Tribe-1, Total 12), applicants as kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE well as private respondents applied for the post of Chief Loco Inspector. Eligibility list of the candidates was published wherein Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 were found to be not eligible for consideration for the reason that they do not have five lakh kilometres of actual footplate duty as Loco Pilot nor have they completed 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot since they were mostly working as Crew Controller, Power Controller, Traction Loco Controller (CC/PRC/TLC). Subsequently, an order was issued by the official respondents dated 04.02.2022 advising as many as 48 persons to participate in the computer based test fixed on 15.02.2022. At that point of time, the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 approached this Tribunal in OA No. 76/2022, which came to be disposed of by this Tribunal on 02.12.2022. However, the notification at Annexure-A1 was cancelled by the 5th respondent as per the order dated 04.03.2022 stating "due to administrative reasons". Subsequently, on the very same day, the 5th respondent issued another notification for filling the very same vacancies notified as per Annexure A1 wherein 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot has been explained referring to RBE No. 80/2021 stating that the term 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot contained in RBE No. 108/2019 means 10 years of service as Loco Pilot kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE including duties rendered as CC/PRC/TLC for the period of tenure in accordance with the extant guidelines issued by the Railway Board in RBE No. 162/2004.
4. Pursuant to the said notification dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure-A8), both the applicants and private respondents applied for the post of Chief Loco Inspector. The names of the applicants and the private respondents figured in the eligibility list notified. After the computer based test, the list published by the respondents publishing the names of the candidates who had secured the minimum qualifying marks for being placed in the panel would also reflect the names of both the applicants and private respondents. While matters stood so, the 5th respondent had issued the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 stating inter alia that a panel was published on 04.07.2022 and in continuation of the same as many as 12 persons are being promoted as Chief Loco Inspectors. In that list, the names of Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are at Sl. Nos. 2, 10, 6, 5 and 7 respectively, but the applicants' names were not found. At that point of time, one of the applicants' colleague by name Shri D. Rajkumar sought some information under the Right to Information Act requesting the respondents to indicate the footplate duties of kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 and also the period during which they were utilised as CC/PRC/TLC. In response, the communication issued by the 6th respondent addressed to the 4th respondent indicate the total service particulars of the private respondents 7 to 11 as follows:
Name LPG LPP/LPM CRC/PRC/TL MDDTI/S C BC Pradeep 06.11.2004- June 2015- December September Kumar 30.11.2005 August 2019 2005 - May 2019 -
(1 year 24 days) (4 years 2 2015 CLI
months) (10 years 5 Promotion
months)
A.S. Prasad 04.02.2003 - May 2012 - August 2005 -
31.07.2005 June 2015 April 2012
July 2015 date
(2 years 5 (3 years 1 of CLI
months 27 days) month) Promotion
(6 years 8
months)
U. Santhosh 01.10.2010- 27.05.2013-
29.08.2011 date of CLI
(Officiating) Promotion
(1 year 2 months
28 days)
30.08.2011-
26.05.2013
(Permanent)
(2 years 3
months 4 days)
D. 01.10.2010- October 2015 September
Rajkumar 29.08.2011 - August 2019 2019 -
(Officiating) CLI
(4 year 2 Promotion
(1 year 2 months months)
28 days)
30.08.2011-
September 2015
(Permanent)
(4 year 1 month)
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shree Bangalore
k 2025.06.25
11:39:12
+05'30'
8
OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE K. Srinivas 22.05.2001 - July 2006-
June 2006 November
(BSP Division) 2011
(5 year 1 month) (BSP Division)
04.11.2016 - (5 years 4
January 2017 months)
(SBC Division) February 2017
- July 2022
(1 year 10 (BSP Division)
months)
(5 years 5
months)
Noticing that the respondents 7 to 11 were not fulfilling the eligibility conditions for being considered for promotion to the post of Chief Loco Inspectors, representations were submitted by the applicants, but of no avail, hence, this OA.
5. At the outset, learned counsel Shri T.C. Govindaswamy representing the applicants submitted that the challenge made to RBE No. 80/2021 dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-A5) issued by the Railway Board is not pressed. The said submission is placed on record.
6. Learned counsel Shri T.C. Govindaswamy submitted that in terms of the original notification dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure-
A1), the service rendered in the CC/PRC/TLC cannot be considered as actual service as Loco Pilots but the said eligibility condition has kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE been altered in the subsequent notification dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure-A8), referring to the instructions issued by the Railway Board dated 01.11.2021 (RBE No. 80/2021), only to favour the private respondents. Hence, the selection order dated 05.07.2022 impugned (Annexure-A13) to the extent it empanels and promotes the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 as Chief Loco Inspectors is ultravires the statutory provisions, and hence, unconstitutional. Even in terms of Annexure-A5 to be considered, the maximum tenure of service a person can be permitted to work as CC/PRC/TLC is only three years. If any further extension is to be made upto maximum of five years, on year to year basis, it can only be based on the specific orders of the General Manager or appropriate authorities. No such extension was granted to any of these respondents, and as such, any service rendered by them beyond three years as CC/PRC/TLC cannot be taken as service as Loco Pilot for the purpose of considering their eligibility for promotion as Chief Loco Inspectors. The applicants are eligible to be empanelled and placed in the panel at the appropriate place but for the inclusion of the private respondents 7 to 11, the applicants would have been included and granted the benefit of promotion. Denial of fair consideration and kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE empanelment and promotion of the private respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory.
7. Placing reliance on RBE No. 108/2019 dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure-A3), learned counsel submitted that the same having been issued with the approval of the President and the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways is statutory in character. No clarification could have been issued to the said instructions to nullify the objects of the same. The applicants being senior to Respondent Nos. 7 to 11, empanelling and promoting the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 by Annexure-A13 is illegal. Accordingly, seeks for interference of this Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the official respondents, referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, submitted that the applicants have not raised any objection after issuance of fresh notification dated 04.03.2022. After accepting the terms and conditions stipulated therein and participating in the selection process, now they are estopped from challenging the promotion and selection panel, being found unsuccessful in the selection. Moreover, no fresh notification dated 04.03.2022 pursuant to which the subject selection was kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE conducted and finalised is challenged. The applications received against fresh notification dated 04.03.2022 were scrutinised along with certification of Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Traction Rolling Operation) for footplate experience and date of completion of 10 years' service as Loco Pilots and eligibility list was published vide office letter dated 20.04.2022, and on completion of pre- selection training to reserved candidates, the written examination was fixed to be held on 04.06.2022 and the same was communicated to all the eligible candidates vide office letter dated 18.05.2022. The list of employees who had secured the qualifying marks in the written examination held on 04.06.2022 for selection to the post of CLI in Level-7 of VII CPC against the fresh notification date 04.03.2022 was published vide office letter dated 15.06.2022. The memorandum dated 04.07.2022 duly placing 12 employees as per vacancies notified vide notification dated 04.03.2022 was published purely on merit basis and subsequently office order dated 05.07.2022 was issued duly promoting them as Chief Loco Inspectors.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 have been continued in their service as Crew kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Controllers beyond the tenure period due to administrative exigencies. Referring to para (f) of RBE No. 9/98, learned counsel submitted that the tenure of posting of such running staff drafted to perform the duties of Power/Crew Controllers will be three years with a cooling off period of equal duration, as such, it cannot be construed that only three years of service rendered as CC/PRC/TLC should be considered for selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspectors. The applicants have not exhausted the alternative remedy available under the relevant service rules. The applicants have not submitted any representation(s) against the office order dated 05.07.2022 impugned herein (Annexure-A13). Thus, supporting the impugned orders, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.
10. Learned counsel Shri Pradeep B. representing learned counsel Shri K. Srinivasa for Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 submitted that the applicants have all along participated in the selection process which involved, among others, computer based test. No objection was raised by the applicants in respect of eligibility of Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 at any point of time, even immediately after passing of the impugned order. However, long after the private kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE respondents were promoted and reported in the promoted post and were discharging their duties, the applicants, purely with vengeance and bias and as an afterthought, have preferred this OA. Pursuant to the cancellation of the 1st notification dated 03.09.2021, a fresh notification dated 04.03.2022 was issued by the respondents for filling up the post of Chief Loco Inspector (12 vacancies). Reliance is placed on para (f) of RBE No. 9/98.
11. It was further submitted that none of the private respondents have at any time during their tenure or after completion of their tenure of three years have given any request orally or in writing to the officers concerned that they want to continue beyond their tenure period as CC/PRC/TLC. In spite of many notifications issued to fill up the vacancies of CC/PRC/TLC, only a few volunteered for the post or many have given unwillingness to work as CC/PRC/TLC. After getting to work as such, one of the applicant selected as CRC later has given unwillingness to work as CRC. Owing to these circumstances, the private respondents were forced to hold the post of CC/PRC/TLC beyond the tenure period of three years due to administrative requirements. Even as per the conduct rules, the private respondents had no discretion to desert a post held kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE by them on their own terms unless they are properly relieved or replaced. The order of selection for the post of CC/PRC/TLC clearly mentions that drafted Loco Pilots shall continue to progress in the running cadre and will be subjected to all the terms and conditions of service applicable to running staff. The selection panel has been issued based on merit. The applicants not being successful in the selection process, do not have any legal right to question the selection and promotion of the private respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the instructions issued in RBE No. 108/2019 dated 03.07.2019 (Annexure A3) has been further clarified in terms of RBE No. 80/2021 dated 01.11.2021, and as such, the entire selection process being in conformity with the prevailing rules/notifications/ clarifications, OA deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether the duties rendered as CC/PRC/TLC by the employees working as Loco Pilot (Mail & Express), Loco Pilot kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Goods) could be included for reckoning the term of completion of 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots, for considering the eligibility condition prescribed in the Notification dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure A8) for filling up the vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7?
2) Whether the impugned order at Annexure A13 issued by the Respondent No. 5 is justifiable, as far as the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 are concerned?
14. Since both the points are interlinked, they are taken together for analysis. The total service rendered by the Respondent Nos. 7 to 11 as Loco Pilots and the footplate experience provided as per Annexures-A14 and A15 are not in dispute. The conditions of eligibility prescribed in the original notification dated 03.09.2021 for filing up of 12 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector (Annexure- A1) reads thus:
"4) Conditions of eligibility:-
i) Employees working as Loco-Pilot (Mail & Express), Loco-Pilot(Passenger) and Loco-Pilot(Goods) who have completed 5,00,000 kilometres of actual footplate duties (actual footplate duties have been defined in Board's Letter No. E(P&A)II/2007/RS/14, dated 12.02.2015) as Loco Pilots (or) have completed 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots, whichever is earlier, would be kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 16 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE eligible for selection through suitability (written examination) cum seniority. Drafted Loco Pilots working as CC/ PRC/TLC on date can also apply for the selection provided they fulfill the above eligibility criteria. As per Railway Board letter No. E(P&A)II/2009/RS-17 (Vol.II) (Part-1) dated 03.06.2021 that the duty performed by Running staff in other capacities like CC/PRC/TLC, which are governed by its own terms and conditions, cannot be treated as "actual service as Loco Pilots" and it cannot be reckoned for the purpose of selection of CLI"
15. Both the applicants and private respondents had participated in the said selection process. The service rendered by the private respondents as CC/PRC/TLC was not considered for reckoning the eligibility and as such as per the eligibility list, they were declared ineligible. Being aggrieved, the private Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 herein and two others had filed OA No. 76/2022 before this Tribunal seeking to set aside the orders issued by the respondents vide letter dated 17.01.2022 conveying that their request to consider their services rendered as CC/PRC/TLC for eligibility for the said selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector cannot be considered inter alia seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to consider their claim to the post of Chief Loco Inspector in accordance with law. By way of an interim order dated 11.02.2022, the applicants therein were permitted to appear in the kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 17 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE examination scheduled to be held on 15.02.2022, however, it was directed that their results shall be kept in a sealed cover during the pendency of the said OA.
16. The examinations scheduled on 15.02.2022 was postponed due to administrative reasons vide letter dated 14.02.2022. Subsequently, PCPO/SWR vide letter dated 23.02.2022 has advised the division that the selection for filling up of vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in electrical department which was initiated/notified on 03.09.2021 was cancelled and a fresh selection has been initiated duly incorporating the conditions introduced vide Railway Board letter No. E(P&A)/II/2009/RS-17(Vol.II) dated 01.11.2021 (RBE No. 80/2021). Accordingly, the said notification dated 03.09.2021 was cancelled vide office order dated 04.03.2022 with the approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, on the same day, fresh notification dated 04.03.2022 duly incorporating the instructions contained in RBE No. 80/2021 was issued. The eligibility conditions prescribed in the said notification dated 04.03.2022 reads thus:
"4) Conditions of eligibility:
i) Employees working as Loco-Pilot (Mail & Express), Loco-Pilot(Passenger) and Loco-
kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 18 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Pilot(Goods) who have completed 5,00,000 kilometres of actual foot plate duties (actual footplate duties have been defined in Board's Lr. No. E(P&A)II/2007/RS/14, dated 12.02.2015 (RBE No. 11/2015) as Loco Pilots (or) have completed 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots, whichever is earlier. Drafted Loco Pilots working as CC/PRC/TLC on date can also apply for the selection provided they fulfill the above eligibility criteria.
"As advised vide RBE No. 80/2021, "The term 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot contained in RBE No. 108/2019 means 10 years of service as Loco Pilot including duties rendered as CC/PRC/TLC for the period of tenure in accordance with extant guidelines issued by the Railway Board in RBE No. 162/2004.
ii) The actual footplate experience as clarified by Rly. Board's Letter No. E(P&A)II/2007/RS/14, dated 12.02.2015 (RBE No. 11/2015), is the experience gained by a loco pilot by performing actual footplate duties is his driving experience. The minimum guaranteed kilometers, incentive/ghat sections kilometers and shunting kilometres, where actual footplate duties are not performed, may not be taken into account while considering the eligibility criteria of running staff for the selection of LIs/PRCs/CCs."
17. Pursuant to the said notification, the applicants and the private respondents have participated in the selection process. No objections were raised by the applicants regarding the eligibility of the private respondents during the selection process. The aspect of representation(s) said to have been submitted before the kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 19 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Respondent No. 5 individually as well as through All India Loco Running Staff Association on 04.07.2022 and 18.07.2022 is totally denied by the official respondents in their reply statement and the same has been further reiterated in the arguments advanced on behalf of the official respondents. No rejoinder is filed by the applicants pursuant to the said averments made in the reply statement. Annexures-A16 and A17, so-called representations, are not accompanied by any acknowledgements for having submitted before the competent authority. Be that as it may, the fulcrum of dispute in the present OA revolves around the issue of reckoning the services rendered by the private respondents as CC/PRC/TLC for eligibility to the post of Chief Loco Inspector on promotion. In view of the cancellation of the original notification dated 03.09.2021 vide order dated 04.03.2022 and the subsequent notification issued on the same date i.e., 04.03.2022, duly incorporating the instructions contained in RBE No. 80/2021, no challenge being made by the applicants either to the cancellation of the original notification or the issuance of the fresh notification for filling up of 12 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector, the challenge made by the applicants to the final selection and promotion cum posting order as far as the prescription of the eligibility condition in kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 20 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the fresh notification dated 04.03.2022 for including duties rendered as CC/PRC/TLC stands on a weak foundation.
18. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Air Commodore N.K. Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 14524/2015 (DD:
14.12.2023) (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1673), wherein it is observed thus:
"61. We find a further ground under which the challenge led by the Respondent, ought to have failed at the first instance.
62. The post of JAG (Air) was upgraded to AVM in the year 2012. The previous occupant of the position superannuated in 2014 whereafter, the Respondent was once again appointed to such position.
63. The said position having fallen vacant and the Respondent, being only an officiating officer, was only considered with his course mates in the Promotion Board of 2015. In other words, he was not considered by the Air Force against the AVM JAG vacancy.
64. It is undisputed that the Respondent participated in the Promotion Board of 2015. It is only when after such consideration alongside other course-mates of the Adm. Branch, when he was not promoted to the rank of AVM JAG (Air) [Result of the Promotion Board, as noted in the OA was 31 March 2015] that he initiated the statutory complaint under Section 27 of the AF Act dated 20 April 2015.
65. Challenging the basis of promotion after having participated in the process on consideration of promotion and having been declared unsuccessful thereunder, is not a valid ground to impugn the policy/method. Repeatedly, this Court has held that such challenges cannot be allowed. On this, we may refer to certain past instances: -
kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 21 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
66. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey [(2015) 11 SCC 493 (2 Judge Bench)] it was observed:-
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
67. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [(2013) 11 SCC 309 (2 Judge Bench)] it was observed:-
18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.
68. Recently, in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu Kashmir [2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 (2 Judge Bench)] having considered a number of earlier decisions, it was held by this Court that:-
"69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 22 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."
69. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Respondent's challenge was barred at first instance, as he participated in the Promotion Board of 2015 and only challenged the non-formation of a policy for filling up the vacancy of AVM JAG (Air), finding himself to be unsuccessful in securing a promotion thereto."
19. As could be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judicial pronouncements, that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome after having been declared unsuccessful. Thus, the applicants are estopped from maintaining the application after giving up the challenge to Annexure-A5 - RBE No. 80/2021 dated 01.11.2021 inasmuch as the outcome of the selection process is concerned. Moreover, RBE No. 108/2019 dated 03.07.2019 Annexure A3 cannot be read in isolation and the same has to be read conjointly with the clarification issued by the Railway Board vide RBE No. 80/2021 dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure A5). The basis for issuing the fresh kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 23 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE notification dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure-A8) is RBE No. 80/2021 (Annexure-A5) which indeed has been categorically referred to in the said notification as under:
"As advised vide RBE No. 80/2021, "The term 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilot contained in RBE No. 108/2019 means 10 years of service as Loco Pilot including duties rendered as CC/PRC/TLC for the period of tenure in accordance with extant guidelines issued by the Railway Board in RBE No. 162/2004.
20. In addition to this, no grievance was raised against the eligibility list notified vide office letter dated 20.04.2022 wherein the names of the private respondents were found as eligible candidates (Annexure A to Annexure A10) along with the applicants. Further, no voice was aired against the list of the eligible candidates who have secured the requisite qualifying marks as per the memorandum dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure A12). The final selection list of the candidates, placed on provisional panel for promotion as Chief Loco Inspector in Level-7 is based on the order of merit. Having regard to the merit of the candidates found in the eligibility list dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure A12) of 24 candidates, 12 vacancies have been filled in the order of merit. The present OA is filed by the applicants only subsequent to the promotion order issued that too about one year after the private respondents kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 24 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE assuming the office as Chief Loco Inspectors and performing duties. On this ground alone, OA is liable to be dismissed.
21. Much emphasis is placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on RBE No. 162/2004 issued by the Railway Board to contend that the period of tenure referred to in RBE No. 108/2019 is three years extension in tenure of running staff would be upto a maximum period of five years on year-to-year basis beyond three years, keeping in view the administrative requirements, provided the General Manager of the concerned zonal railway extends the tenue of posting of running staff drafted to perform the duties of Power/Crew Controllers. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, if the same is considered, all the private respondents are not eligible. As specifically averred by the private respondents in their reply statement, no request for extension of their tenure was made by them to perform the duties CC/PRC/TLC. There is no doubt in the mind of the applicants that all the private respondents have completed 10 years as Loco Pilots but their only grievance is regarding the duration of service rendered as actual Loco Pilot, which is uncalled for, as the Respondent No. 5 who, as an appointing authority, has ordered all the private respondents at kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.06.25 11:39:12 +05'30' 25 OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE various points in time to discharge duties of CC/PRC/TLC and it is the very same authority which should repatriate them to their parent cadre. Until such time, the time spent over and above the tenure period, if any, is fully due to administrative requirements and to be construed as deemed approval of the General Manager of the concerned zonal railway.
22. Indubitably, the private respondents are coming within the eligibility criteria of 10 years if the services rendered by them in discharging the duties of CC/PRC/TLC is considered. The same being held to be permissible in the notification dated 04.03.2022 (Annexure A8) read with RBE No. 80/2021, the applicants cannot question the eligibility of the private respondents to the post of Chief Loco Inspector at this juncture. The earlier selection process initiated vide notification dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure A1) having been cancelled, no reliance could be placed on the said notification dehors the eligibility conditions prescribed in the subsequent notification dated 04.03.2022 pursuant to which the applicants, without any objections/demur, participated in the said selection process along with the private respondents.
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shree Bangalore
k 2025.06.25
11:39:12
+05'30'
26
OA.No.170/00434/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
23. For the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned selection panel and promotion cum posting order dated 05.07.2022 being in conformity with the extant rules and instructions issued by the Railway Board, the same cannot be held to be unjustifiable as far as the private respondents are concerned.
24. Viewed from any angle, OA is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
kavya shree k
CAT,
kavya shree Bangalore
k 2025.06.25
11:39:12
+05'30'