Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Shiv Dayal Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 25 April, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1691/2013 Reserved On:11.03.2014 Pronounced On:25.04.2014 Honble Shri G.George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Shri P.K. Basu, Member (A) 1. Shri Shiv Dayal Sharma S/o Shri Dhan Prasad Railway Guard Hari Nagar, Tunla. 2. Mohd. Karimuddin S/o Shri Moh. Fakuruddin Railway Guard, Line Par, Tundla. 3. Vinay Kumar Sengar S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Railway Guard, Gulab Nagar, Tundla. 4. Vinay Kumar Sengar S/o ShriPratap Singh, Railway Guard, Gulab Nagar, Tundla. 5. Navin Prakash Srivastava S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Railway Guard, Gulab Nagar, Tundla. 6. Ashish Kumar Moitra S/o Shri Rameshwar Railway Guard, Gulab Nagar, Tundla. 7. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Railway Guard, Teacher Colony, Tundla. 8. Lekh Raj Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Railway Guard, Teacher Colony, Tundla. 9. Ashu Singh Chauhan S/o Shir Ramesh Chandra Chauhan Railway Guard, 1/97, M.P., Nai Basti, Tundla. 10. Amar Nath Yadav S/o Shri Man Singh Railway Guard, 606/D, Rest Camp, Tundla. 11. J.P. Harshana S/o Shri Amar Singh Railway Guard, 261-B, New Railway Colony, Tundla. 12. Rajan Lal Gautam S/o Shri Niranjan Pd. Gautam Railway Guard, 20-F, Central Road, Tundla. 13. AShok Kumar-III S/o Shri Ram Swarup Railway Guard, 324-D, Company Bagh, Tundla. 14. Ram Avtar S/o Shri Shrichand Yadav Railway Guard, Krishan Vihar Colony, Near Vaishali Puram, Tundla. 15. Meghraj Singh S/o Shri Sundar Singh Railway Guard, Quarter No.111-C, Line Par, Tundla. 16. Yogendra Kumar S/o Shri Raj Pal Singh Railway Guard, 544-C, Company Bagh, Tundla. 17. Yogvesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Beni Ram Sharma Railway Guard, 238/B, Dhobi Ghat, Tundla. 18. Syed Naseem Akhtar Nagoi S/o Shri A.H. Nagoi Railway Guard, 4/31, Line Par, Tundla. 19. H.O. Bhardwaj S/o Shri S.L. Sharma Railway Guard, 158, Durgan Nagar, Firozabad. 20. Raj Kumar-III S/o Shri Ram Charan Das Railway Guard, 381-D, New Railway Colony, Tundla. Applicants By Advocate: Mrs. Meenu Mainee. Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH 1. The Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. 4. The Chief Controller, North Central Railway, Tundla. 5. Shri Suresh Chand Balmiki, S/o Shri Ram Baksh, Guard, Northern Railway, Tundla. 6. Shri Narinder Kumar, S/o Shri Amir Chand, Guard, G.M.C. 7. Shri Harish Chand, S/o Shri Ram Dulare, Guard, Northern Railway, Allahabad. Respondents ( Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to be served through the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad) By Advocate: Shri R.L. Dhawan. ORDER
Shri G.George Paracken, M(J) The Applicants are aggrieved by the impugned order No.561-E/E.T.-3/Passenger Guard/Promotion/12 dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Allahabad by which they have issued a select list of 84 candidates for promotion from the post of Senior Goods Guard to that of Passenger Guards. According to them, the inclusion of 17 SC/ST candidates who are junior to them by way of granting reservation in promotion was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. They have further stated that the Respondents are still following the Circular No.E (NG)I-97/SR6/3/Vol.IV dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Railway Board by which instructions have been given for giving consequential seniority to SC/ST employees without ensuring that the conditionalties prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others JT 2006 (9) SC 191 are fulfilled. In this regard Applicants have relied upon the order of this Tribunal dated 02.12.2010 in Full Bench case - OA No.2211/2008 All India Equality Forum and Others Vs. U.O.I. & Others in which aforesaid circular dated 29.02.2008 has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that all the Applicants in this OA are presently working as Senior Goods Guards in the grade of Rs.9300-24800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. They are eligible for promotion to the post of Passenger Guard. The promotions have to be made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. As soon as the Applicants came to know that the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were going to fill up as many as 86 vacancies of Passenger Guards following the reservation policy, they got a legal notice served upon Respondents No.3 in October, 2012 requesting it to refrain from following the reservation policy for filling up the vacancies in the category of Passenger Guards. However, without considering the said notice, the Respondents have issued the impugned select list of 84 candidates for promotion from the post of Senior Goods Guard to Passenger Guards applying the principle of reservation and considering the reserved category candidates who were junior to the Applicants. Their contention was that the reservation policy so adopted in this case is in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagaraj and Others (supra). They have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Manorama Vs. Union of India represented by General Manager Southern Railway and Others 2010 (10) SCC 323 wherein it has been held as under:-
Even otherwise, the principle that when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition field on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes, but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not to the promotions effected on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability.
Further, they have relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2211/2008 All India Equality Forum and Others Vs. U.O.I. & Others decided on 02.12.2010. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
While setting aside instructions dated 29.2.2008, our directions would be to not to give accelerated seniority to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category employees till such time pre-conditions on which alone Article 16(4A) of the Constitution is to operate, are complied with.
3. The Respondents in their reply submitted that the Applicants have sought quashing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 in respect of 17 SC/ST employees who are junior to the Applicants and have been promoted as Passenger Guard. They have submitted that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the Applicants to assail Railway Boards instructions issued vide RBE No.29/2008. They have also stated that the Respondents have issued the impugned orders strictly in terms of the prevailing rules and guidelines on the subject. As long as the said rules prevail, the Respondents cannot be seen to be acting against the rules/guidelines prescribed in this case. They have also stated that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Manorma Vs. U.O.I. 2010 (10) SCC 232 has no relevance in the present case wherein promotions of Sr. Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard have been made on the seniority-cum-suitability.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants Mrs. Meenu Mainee and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri R.L. Dhawan. We have also perused the documents filed by the parties available on record. The question of reservation in promotion is already a settled issue. The five judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others JT 2006 (9) SC 191, 2006 (8) SCC 2112 held that reservation in promotion per se is not unconstitutional. Therefore, it has upheld the provisions for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with consequential seniority as contained in Article 16 (4A) and Article 16 (4B) of Constitution. The said Article reads as under:-
(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. But such reservation is subject to the condition that the State shall form its opinion that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented in the service. The relevant part of the Apex Courts judgment in the aforesaid case is as under:-
122. However, in this case, as stated, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the concerned State will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.
5. Again in its judgment in Suraj Bhan Meena and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others (2011) 1 SCC 467, the Apex Court reiterated the conditions precedent for reservation of posts in promotion as inadequacy of representation of members of SCs and STs and ascertainment of the necessity of such reservation. Further, the said judgment held the notifications providing for promotion of members of SCs and STs with consequential seniority issued by State Government without first acquiring quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public services has been rightly set aside by High Court. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
64. Ultimately, after the entire exercise, the Constitution Bench held that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in matters of promotion but if it wished, it could collect quantifiable data touching backwardness of the applicants and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment for the purpose of compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution.
65. In effect, what has been decided in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) is part recognition of the views expressed in Virpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra), but at the same time upholding the validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th amendments on the ground that the concepts of "catch-up" rule and "consequential seniority" are judicially evolved concepts and could not be elevated to the status of a constitutional principle so as to place them beyond the amending power of the Parliament. Accordingly, while upholding the validity of the said amendments, the Constitution Bench added that, in any event, the requirement of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) would have to be maintained and that in order to provide for reservation, if at all, the tests indicated in Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) would have to be satisfied, which could only be achieved after an inquiry as to identity.
66. The position after the decision in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) is that reservation of posts in promotion is dependent on the inadequacy of representation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and subject to the condition of ascertaining as to whether such reservation was at all required.
67. The view of the High Court is based on the decision in M. Nagaraj's case (supra) as no exercise was undertaken in terms of Article 16(4-A) to acquire quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities in public services. The Rajasthan High Court has rightly quashed the notifications dated 28.12.2002 and 25.4.2008 issued by the State of Rajasthan providing for consequential seniority and promotion to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities and the same does not call for any interference.
6. Further, in its recent judgment in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar & Others 2012 (4) SCALE 687 decided on 27.04.2012, the Apex Court has held that fresh exercise in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagarajs case (supra) is a categorical imperative. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
41. As has been indicated hereinbefore, it has been vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel for the State and the learned senior counsel for the Corporation that once the principle of reservation was made applicable to the spectrum of promotion, no fresh exercise is necessary. It is also urged that the efficiency in service is not jeopardized. Reference has been made to the Social Justice Committee Report and the chart. We need not produce the same as the said exercise was done regard being had to the population and vacancies and not to the concepts that have been evolved in M. Nagaraj (supra). It is one thing to think that there are statutory rules or executive instructions to grant promotion but it cannot be forgotten that they were all subject to the pronouncement by this Court in Vir Pal Singh Chauhan (supra) and Ajit Singh (II) (supra). We are of the firm view that a fresh exercise in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) is a categorical imperative. The stand that the constitutional amendments have facilitated the reservation in promotion with consequential seniority and have given the stamp of approval to the Act and the Rules cannot withstand close scrutiny inasmuch as the Constitution Bench has clearly opined that Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling provisions and the State can make provisions for the same on certain basis or foundation. The conditions precedent have not been satisfied. No exercise has been undertaken. What has been argued with vehemence is that it is not necessary as the concept of reservation in promotion was already in vogue. We are unable to accept the said submission, for when the provisions of the Constitution are treated valid with certain conditions or riders, it becomes incumbent on the part of the State to appreciate and apply the test so that its amendments can be tested and withstand the scrutiny on parameters laid down therein.
7. A Full Bench of this Tribunal has also considered the issue earlier in great detail in its order dated 02.12.2010 in OA No. 2211/2008 - All India Equality Forum and Others v. Union of India and Others. The said order has also directed the Respondent Railways therein not to give accelerated promotion and consequential seniority to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category employees till such time pre-conditions on which Article 16(4A) of the Constitution is to operate, are complied with. The concluding part of the said order reads as under:-
37. We have applied our mind to the pleadings and the contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the applicants on the issues as mentioned above, but are of the view that once, in brevity, it is the case of the applicants that when no compliance of pre-conditions as spelled out in M. Nagarajs case has been done, reservation in promotion with accelerated seniority shall have to be worked in the way and manner as per the law settled earlier on the issue. If that be so, we need not have to labour on the issues raised by the applicants, as surely, if the position is already settled, the only relevant discussion and adjudication in this case can be and should be confined to non-observance of the pre-conditions for making accelerated promotions as valid. We have already held above that the railways have not worked out or even applied their mind to the pre-conditions as mentioned above before giving effect to the provisions of Article 16(4A), and for that reason, circular dated 29.2.2008 vide which the seniority of SC/ST railway servants promoted by virtue of rule of reservation/roster has to be regulated in terms of instructions contained in Boards letter dated 8.3.2002 and 13.1.2005, has to be quashed. There is a specific prayer to quash instructions dated 8.3.2002 and 13.1.2005 as well, but there would be no need to do so as the same have been discussed in the case of railways itself in the matter of Virpal Singh Chauhan (supra), and commented upon. While setting aside instructions dated 29.2.2008, our directions would be to not to give accelerated seniority to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category employees till such time pre-conditions on which alone Article 16(4A) of the Constitution is to operate, are complied with. No directions in this case can be given as regards seniority of the applicants vis-a-vis those who were appointed with them and have stolen a march over them because of reservation and have obtained accelerated seniority. No such specific prayer has been made either. However, it would be open for the parties to this lis or any one else to seek determination of their proper seniority for which legal proceedings shall have to be resorted to. It would be difficult to order across the board that all those who have obtained the benefit of reservation and have also been accorded accelerated seniority be put below general category candidates who may have been senior to the reserved category employees and became below in seniority on the promoted posts because of conferment of accelerated seniority to the reserved category employees. Surely, for seeking seniority over and above Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees, number of things shall have to be gone into, as for instance, as to when was the promotion made and seniority fixed, and whether the cause of general category employees would be within limitation. There can be number of issues that may arise. We have mentioned only one by way of illustration.
8. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.13218 of 2009 (O&M) Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others v. Jarnail Singh and Others decided on 15.07.2011 has also followed the Apex Courts dictum in the case of M. Nagarajs case (supra) and held as under:-
38. When the principles laid down in the case of M. Nagaraj(supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) are applied to the notifications impugned in the present proceedings, namely, 11.7.2002, 31.1.2005 (R-1 and R-2) and further notification dated 21.1.2009 and 10.8.2010, it becomes clear that no survey has been undertaken to find out inadequacy of representation in respect of members of the SC/ST in the services. The aforesaid fact has been candidly admitted in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The aforesaid fact has also been conceded by the respondent-Union of India in the communication dated 15.9.2010. In para (iv) of the aforesaid communication it has been stated that no exercise was carried out to assess the inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in the services under the Government of India before issue of instructions dated 31.1.2005. The aforementioned communication has been placed on record along with CM No. 14865 of 2010. In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made alongwith backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffers from violation of the provisions of Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagarajs case (supra) as well as in Suraj Bhan Meenas case (supra).
9. Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal has also decided OA No.2434/2012 Liladhar Ramchandi and Others Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others (decided on 27.09.2013) and OA No.2009/2013 Shri Vijender Singh and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others (decided on 24.12.2013) following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Apex Court. The operative parts of those OAs are as under:-
OA No.2434/20125. It is the specific case of the applicants that the respondents are not bound to make reservations for SCs/STs in the matter of promotions, and however, if they wish to exercise their discretion, and make such provision, they have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of the representation of that class. Even if there are compelling reasons, the respondents have to see that the reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely, as per the dicta laid down in the aforesaid Judgments. But the respondents, without undertaking any exercise as contemplated by the Honble Apex Court, as aforesaid, and without making any provision for providing reservations in promotions, effected the promotions in various Nursing Cadres, by following the rule of reservation, and further contemplating to make further promotions to higher posts.
6. The respondents vide their reply though not denied the OA averments, but submitted that after the pronouncement of the Judgements in S.Nagaraj and Suraj Bhan Meenas cases (supra), they have not received any Instructions/Guidelines or Office Memorandums/Circulars either to follow those Judgments or orders passed in compliance of the said Judgments, and hence, they have applied the rule of reservations in effecting promotions to various Nursing Cadres. It is further stated that the Department is in the process of finalizing the seniority lists of Staff Nurses and as soon as those lists are finalized, the ad hoc promotions made under the impugned Annexures would be reviewed and further appropriate action as per law would be taken. They further submit that since the impugned promotions are only of ad hoc nature and would be reviewed once the seniority lists of Staff Nurses are finalized, therefore, the interference of this Tribunal is not warranted at this stage.
7. Heard Shri M.K.Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. P.K.Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents and also gone through the pleadings on record.
8. No person or authority can ignore or violate the law of the land on the ground that they have not received any Instructions/Guidelines/Office Memorandums/Circulars from their higher authorities or from any other Ministry to follow the said law.
9. The contention of the respondents that the promotions were effected only on ad hoc basis and hence, they will apply the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court while making regular promotions and till then they maintain the ad hoc promotions is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable.
10. The present OA is filed without making any of the affected parties as respondents to the OA. Further, in the impugned promotion orders, which are sought to be quashed, in addition to the ineligible persons, i.e., persons promoted by virtue of applying the rule of reservation in promotions, others who belongs to all categories, i.e., General and Reserved categories, whose cases would not be effected, even the rule of reservation is not applied are also there. In view of the same, we are not proposing to quash the impugned orders. Alternatively, the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondents to review all the promotions effected by applying rule of reservation to the categories of Nursing Sisters, Assistant Nursing Sisters, Deputy Nursing Sisters and Nursing Superintendents and re do the entire exercise of effecting promotions to the said categories, in strict compliance of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467, and accordingly, draw the seniority lists in the said categories as per rules. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
11. The OA is accordingly allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.OA No.2009/2013
8. Heard Shri M.K.Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri N.K.Singh for Mrs. Avniash Ahlawat, the learned counsel for the official respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Ajesh Luthra for Respondents No.3 to 5 and 7 and Shri A.K.Singh for Respondent No.6 and also gone through the pleadings on record.
9. No person or authority can ignore or violate the law of the land on the ground that they have not received any Instructions/Guidelines/Office Memorandums/Circulars from their higher authorities or from any other Ministry to follow the said law.
10. The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the Judgements of the Honble Apex Court in DWARIKESH SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD V. PREM HEAVY ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER, (1997) 6 SCC 450 and submits that the Apex Court has observed in Para 32 as under:
32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate Courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate Courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops. He also placed reliance on a Judgment of this Bench in OA No.2434/2012, dated 5.12.2013, to this effect.
11. Shri Ajesh Luthra and Shri A.K.Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submit that they belong to Unreserved category and are very much senior to the applicants in the category of Sub Inspector (Executive) and irrespective of the result of the OA, they are entitled for promotion to the post of Inspector, in view of their seniority and in view of availability of the sufficient vacancies. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents also not disputed the legal position and the applicability of the Judgements of the Honble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Suraj Bhan Meena, etc. to the facts of the present case.
12. This Tribunal while issuing notices restrained the respondents from making any further promotions by order dated 11.06.2013. When the MA No.1994/2013 filed by respondents 3 to 5 seeking to vacate or modify the said order, was not found favour by this Tribunal by order dated 06.08.2013, they filed W.P (C) No.6582/2013 and the same was disposed by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.10.2013 directing this Tribunal to dispose the main OA itself.
13. The present OA is filed without making any of the affected parties as respondents to the OA. Further, in the impugned orders, which are sought to be quashed, in addition to the ineligible persons, i.e., persons sought to be promoted by virtue of applying the rule of reservation in promotions, others who belongs to all categories, i.e., General and Reserved categories, whose cases would not be effected, even the rule of reservation is not applied are also there. In view of the same, we are not proposing to quash the impugned orders. Alternatively, the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondents to review the impugned order issued by applying rule of reservation and to redo the entire exercise in strict compliance of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467, and accordingly, redraw the names of Sub Inspectors (Executive) for admission to Promotion List `F (Exe.) for the vacancy year 2013-14, as per rules. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
14. The OA is accordingly allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions. In view of the orders in OA, no orders are necessary in MA 1994/2013 and MA 2753/2013 filed for vacation/modification of interim order dated 11.06.2013 and they are also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
10. In view of the above facts and law on the subject, we allow this OA. Consequently, the impugned order No.561E/ET-3/Passenger Guard/Promotion/12 dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad is quashed and set aside to the extent that the Respondents have issued the aforesaid panel following reservation policy without fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the Apex Court in M. Nagarajs case (supra). We also direct the Respondents that till those conditions are fulfilled, they shall grant promotions without following reservation for SC/ST candidates. The Respondents shall also consider the Applicants for promotion to the post of Passenger Guards from the due date with all consequential benefits except back wages.
11. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(P.K. BASU) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh