Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Shiv Bhan Singh vs M/O Railways on 7 March, 2025
1 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00550/2014
Gwalior, this Friday, the 7th day of March, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shiv Bhan Singh, S/o R R Singh, aged about 43 years, Occupation: Senior
Section Engineer (P.Way), South East Central Railway, Raipur Division,
Bhatapara, Residence at: 6/14, Block Shivanand Nagar, Raipur, C.G. -
492001 -Applicant
(By Advocate - Ms. Kaushiki Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Akash
Choudhary)
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi 110001
2. South East Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Bilaspur, C.G.- 495004,
through its General Manager
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Headquarters
Office, Personnel Department, Bilaspur, C.G. - 495004
4. Anil Ekka, Senior Section Engineer (T.M.), South East Central Railways,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, C.G. - 495004
5. Balkrishna Chaudhary, Senior Section Engineer (P. Way), South East
Central Railways, Bilaspur Division, Anuppur, M.P. - 484224
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri P K Chaurasiya, for Respondent nos. 1 to 4, None
for Respondent no. 5)
Page 1 of 10
Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
VISHAL
COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur,
S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone=
7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce
7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER=
8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8
7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL
KUSHWAH KUSHWAH
Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM:
Through this O.A., Applicant is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the Railway Board Circulars dated 07.08.2002, 20.06.2003 and 01.09.2010 (Annexure-A/10, A/11 & A/14 respectively) and the empanelment order annexure A/9, on the ground that the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Applicant as projected in the original application are that the Applicant and Respondent no. 5 were recruited on the post of Appr. Section Engineer (P. Way) through the Railways Recruitment Board (RRB). Immediately after recruitment the Applicant and Respondent no. 5 were sent for training to the Zonal Training Centre (ZTC) and after the training period, the Applicant was placed above Respondent no. 5 in the order of merit based on the result of examination held at the end of the training period (Annexure A/1). As per para 303 (a) of the IREM Vol. 1 (Annexure A/2), inter se seniority amongst candidates of the same training batch is determined on the basis of their inter se merit in this exam, i.e., the person above in merit will rank senior to those placed below him. As per para 201.1 of IREM (Annexure A/4) provides that 70% of all vacancies in Group B are to be filled up by promotion on the basis of selection of eligible Group 'C' employees. Hence, for the purpose of formation of panel for selection for the 11 Group 'B' posts (UR-08, SC-01 and ST-02) against the said 70 % vacancies, revised provisional integrated seniority list was issued by Respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure A/5) wherein the names of Respondent no. 4, Applicant and Respondent no. 5 found mention at s. nos. 67, 69 and 70 respectively. Respondent no. 4 is a ST candidate whereas the Applicant and Respondent no. 5 are UR candidates.Page 2 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 Aggrieved by the placement of certain other candidates above him in the aforesaid integrated seniority lists, Applicant made representations dated 14.09.2013 & 15.11.2013. Thereafter the date of written examination was notified vide order dated 04.12.2013 (Annexure A/7) along with a list wherein Respondent no.5 at s.no. 50 was placed above the Applicant at s.no.53. This was because the names of the Applicant and Respondent no.5 were mentioned in the order of their date of appointment, which is contrary to para 303(a) of the IREM, which contemplates that seniority should be based on the position obtained in the merit as per the examination held at the end of the training period. Against this, the Applicant had been continuously making representations to Respondent nos.2 and 3, but, to no avail. 11 candidates, including the Applicant and Respondent nos.4 & 5, qualified the written-test and were made provisionally eligible for viva voce, list was issued by Respondents vide letter dated 2.6.2014 (Annexure A-8). However, again the same illegality was committed as the name of Respondent no.5 was placed above the Applicant. Pursuant to the viva voce vide letter dated 01-
07-2014 the impugned panel of 8 candidates for promotion to Group 'B' posts was issued by the Respondents (Annexure A-9). All the candidates in the said list were empanelled against UR vacancies. The name of the Applicant did not find mention therein though he was in the first 7 UR candidates who had secured the requisite qualifying marks of above 60% (Annex. A-8).
(1) Respondent no.4 was included therein at s.no.5, instead of empanelling him against the ST vacancies- contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, & Page 3 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 (2) Respondent no.5, at s.no.6, was treated as senior to the Applicant-
contrary to para 303 (a) IREM, Vol. 1 (Annex. A-2) and hence, wrongly empanelled ahead of him.
The law has been further clarified in K Manorama's case (2010) 10 SCC 323 in para 17 wherein it has been held:
"..the principle that when a member belonging to a Scheduled Caste gets selected in the open competition filed on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted for the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes, but will be treated an 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."
Initially, impugned circulars dated 07-08-2002 and 20.06.2003 (Annexs. A- 10 & A-11) were issued by Respondent no.1 by wrongly interpreting the law laid down by the Apex Court (Supra). Their cumulative effect was that SC/ST candidates were included in the panel/select list and treated as own merit candidates and hence, they were adjusted against UR vacancies.
However, the subsequent circulars dated 06-05-2005 and 29-01-2009 (Annexs. A-12 & A-13) clarified the position that--
"...Since in case of promotions by Non Selection, promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the concept of merit is not involved in such promotions, instructions contained in Board's letter dated 07-08-2002 and 20-06-2003...do not apply to promotions made by Non Selection method."
Illegality has been committed by the Railway by issuing circular dated 01- 09-2010 (Annex. A-14) superseding the circulars dated 06-05-2005 and 29- 01-2009 (Annexs. A-12 & A-13) and resuming the impugned circulars dated 07-08-2002 and 20.06.2003 (Annexs. A-10 & A-11).
Page 4 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAHDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 In the case of M. Nagaraj (2006) 8 SCC 212 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"123. ...The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make reservations in promotions, the States have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency, as indicated by Article 335...
102. ...If the State concerned fails to identify and measure backwardness, inadequacy and overall administrative efficiency then in that event the provision for reservation would be invalid..."
The further challenge was made to Annexure-A/9 by which the name of the Respondent No.4 has been empanelled for promotion to Group B post of AEN/AXEN under 70% LGS quota against the UR vacancy whereas the fact remains that the Respondent No.4 belongs to ST community and inspite of the fact that two posts are lying vacant in ST category, the Respondent No.4 has been considered as above and the Applicant has been left out against UR vacancy and subsequent promotion to Group B.
3. The Respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted that the post of AEN/AXEN (Gr "B") against 70% is a purely selection post in terms of Railway Boards letter dated 24.08.1982 (Annexure R/1). Thus, the vacancies will be filled by promotion through selection (which will include ordinarily a written test and also a viva-voce test) of the non ministerial Group "C" staffs of Civil Engineering department. Notification for conducting written examination for selection to the post of AEN/AXEN (Gr "B") against 70% was issued vide office letter No. P- HQ/CON/452/1/E/583 dated 04.12.2013 scheduling the written examination on 05.01.2014, as per the integrated seniority list dated 28.11.2013. On the basis of integrated seniority list, 58 willing and eligible candidates were Page 5 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 called for written examination vide letter No. P-HQ /CON/452/1/E/583 dated
04.12.2013, wherein the name of the Applicant finds mention at Sr.No.53 whereas the name of the Respondent No.5 is at Sr. No.50. The written test was conducted on 05.01.2014 and 05.02.2014. The result of the written examination was published on 16.04.2014. Thereafter, viva-voce test was conducted on 18.06.2014 vide letter dated 02.06.2014 and final panel was published on 01.07.2014 wherein out of 11 (UR-08, SC-01 & ST-02) vacancies, only 08 -UR candidates got empanelled and the panel was published. Out of 08 empanelled candidates 01-ST candidate Shri Anil Ekka (ST) Respondent No.4 got empanelled against UR post as per his marks in terms of Railway Boards letter No.99-E(SCT)I/25/13 dated 01.09.2010. Since there are no other SC/ST candidates who qualified in the written examination, hence 03 posts (SC-01 & ST-02) remained un-filled. The Respondents No.4 Shri Anil Ekka (ST) finds place in the integrated seniority list at Sr. No. 48 as he had qualified the written examination. The name of the Respondent No.4 finds place at Sr. No.4 in the result of written examination published on 16.04.2014 and as well as in the viva-voce. The Respondents No.4 Shri Anil Ekka (ST) has been empanelled against UR post as per Para 3 of Railway Boards letter No.99-E(SCT)I/25/13 dated 01.09.2010. The instructions issued by Railway Board vide letter dated 06.05.2005 and 29.01.2009 are not applicable in this selection process and the selection has been finalized in terms of Para 3 of Railway Boards letter No. 99-E(SCT)I/25/13 dated 01.09.2010. The Respondent No.5 had also been shown senior to the Applicant as per integrated seniority list dated 28.11.2013. Accordingly, the Respondent No.5 has been empanelled against UR post as per his merit. There is no change in the position of seniority list after publication of the Notification dt. 04.12.2013. The result of the written Page 6 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 examination and viva-voce test was also conducted as per seniority for empanelment to the post of AEX/AXEN (Gr "B") against 70% quota.
4. We have considered this matter after hearing both the counsel and perused the documents on record.
5. Reference is invited to OM dated 10.08.2010, which has been adopted by the Railway Board in RBE No.126/2010 dated 01.09.2010, wherein DOP&T has stated as under:
"3. The matter has been examined in the light of the above referred judgments and it has been decided to withdraw the OM No. 36028/17/2001-Estt (Res.) dated 31.01.2005 referred to above. It is clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method..."
6. It is to state that the said circular of the DOP&T has been set aside by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Jarnail Singh vs Lachhminarayan Gupta in CWP No. 13218 of 2009. The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"40. As a sequel to the above discussion, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The instructions dated 31.1.2005 (R-2) stands withdrawn on 10.8.2010 (P-10). Therefore, no order is required to be passed in respect of those instructions dealing with the subject of reservation in promotion and the treatment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit. Likewise, the instructions dated 10.8.2010 (P-16) are hereby quashed because they are in direct conflict with the view taken by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj's s case (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena's case (supra)."
7. The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been challenged by State Govt. in the case of Jarnail Singh & Others which is still pending in the Supreme Court. In the case of M. Nagraj vs. Union of India (2006) Page 7 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 8 SCC 212 196, constitutional validity of 85th Amendment Act, 2001 inserting Article 16(4A) of the Constitution retrospectively from 17th June, 1995 providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority was challenged. According to the petitioners, the impugned amendment reversed the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Januja and Others versus State of Punjab and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 715 and other cases. Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagraj (supra) has held that the judgements of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 and Ajit Singh Januja (supra) were judgements delivered by the Supreme Court which enunciated the law of the land. It is the law which is sought to be changed by the impugned constitutional amendments. The impugned constitutional amendments are enabling in nature. They leave it to the States to provide for reservation.
8. In para 123 of M. Nagraj case (supra), Supreme Court held that:-
"123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the "extent of reservation". In this regard the State concerned 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 SCs/STs in matters 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 with 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."
9. From these observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that Supreme Court has held that Article 16(4) and 16(4A) are enabling provisions. The Page 8 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters 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 with Article 335 of the Constitution.
10. In the case of Jarnail Singh and Others versus Lachhmi Narayan Gupta , (2018) 10 SCC 396, the condition of backwardness laid down in M. Nagraj case was removed as it was in violation of Indra Sawhney (supra) judgement. Supreme Court held that the conclusion in M. Nagraj case that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes is contrary to Judgement of Nine Judges Bench in Indra Sawhney case. However, it has been held that collection of quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation in the State services maintaining overall efficiency in administration is a sine qua non for making reservations in promotion for SC/ST.
11. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid law prevailing on the subject, the action of the Respondents in placing the Respondent no. 4 over the Applicant against the UR vacancy is incorrect and merits to be rectified by considering the Applicant against UR vacancy and placing him above in seniority list vis-à-vis Respondent no. 4.
12. Further, the Respondents have categorically stated that the date of regularization of the Applicant i.e. 16.02.2001 was wrongly done as he had not completed required training period of 12 months. Para 302, IREM Vol I, Chapter-III, Note (i) of Railway Board's Circular states as follows-Page 9 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A.No. 200/00550/2014 In case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed in the exigencies of services the date of joining the working post in case of such a direct recruit shall be the date he would have normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed period of training.
We observe there is no infirmity in empanelment of Respondent no. 5 over and above the Applicant as per the said circular.
13. The empanelment of Respondent no. 4 to the UR post is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to adjust the Applicant vis-a-vis Respondent no. 4 against UR vacancy and modify the seniority list accordingly. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. All consequential benefits due to the Applicant after the revised seniority list is drawn should be granted to him.
14. This order shall be subject to the final outcome of the Jarnail Singh case (Supra) pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the above terms, the O.A. is partially allowed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member VK/- Page 10 of 10 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= VISHAL COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486bd6ce 7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd020e8 7d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH KUSHWAH Reason:
Location:
Date: 2025.03.11 10:01:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0