Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Kumar vs Union Of India Through General Manager ... on 8 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO. 586-HR-2008 Orders pronounced on: 08.12.2016
(Orders reserved on: 25.11.2016)
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A).
Surinder Kumar
son of Shri Nek Ram,
age 41 years,
presently working as Sr. Section Engineer,
SIG-II,
Office of Sr. DSTE,
\Northern Railway,
Ambala.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager (P),
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Ambala Division, Ambala.
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate.
3. Shri Paramjit Singh, Assistant Divisional Signal Telecom Engineer, Divisional Railway Manager Office,
Northern Railway,
Ferozepur.
By ADVOCATE : None.
RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J)
1. This Original Application is directed against letter dated 25.2.2008 in which name of the applicant has been shown at Sr. No. 171, whereas that of respondent no.3 at Sr. No. 170 by wrongly showing date of appointment of applicant as SSE as 6.9.1999 instead of 6.8.1999, for promotion as ASTE against 70% quota and for issuance of direction to the respondents to include his name in panel of ASTE against 70% quota in pursuance of selection held on 17.5.2007 and 28.6.2008, result of which was declared on 3.6.2008 etc.
2. The facts, which led to the filing of the Original Application are that applicant joined service as Junior Engineer Grade II in pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 on 1.2.1989 and was promoted as JE Gr. I in 1993 in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and then as Sr. Section Engineer, in pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 6.8.1999. Respondent no.3 (Paramjit Singh) was promoted as Senior Section vide letter dated 31.8.1999. Thus, he claims that he was senior to him as SSE. In the provisional combined seniority list of S&T Department against 70% quota, name of applicant is at Sr. No. 245 whereas that of respondent no.3 was at Sr. No. 258, with date of appointment as SSE as 31.8.1999.
3. The Railway Administration proceeded to conduct selection for promotion to Group B post of ASTE against 70% quota in S&T Department for which eligibility list of candidates was issued as on 17.5.2008. The applicant was shown at Sr. No. 124 and respondent no.3 at Sr. No. 123. However, it was not a seniority list. The selection was conducted on 28.6.2008 and result was declared on 3.7.2008 in which applicant was shown at Sr. No. 42 whereas respondent no.3 at Sr. No. 41. Ultimately respondent no.3 was empanelled for the post of ASTE against 70% quota being senior, hence the O.A.
4. The respondents resisted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed reply. They submitted that as per rule provision, employees from different streams are eligible to appear for selection in Group B on the basis of length of service in grade of Rs.2000-3200 and their integrated seniority for the purpose of selection is to be determined on the basis of total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in grade pay of Rs.2000-3200 / 6500-10500 and above. In other words, the date of appointment to the grade Rs.2000-3200/6500-10500 of non-fortuitous service determine inter-se seniority of the candidates appearing for selection to the Posts of ASTC against 70% quota. At the time of selection as ASTC in question against 70% quota, the applicant was working as SE/Signal Grade Rs.6500-10500 whereas respondent no.3 was working as SE/Telecom grade Rs.6500-10500. Thus, both belong to different streams and seniority is maintained separately. The applicant was empanelled as SE / Signal vide letter dated 4.8.1999 and was promoted vide order dated 24.8.1999 but joined his duties only on 6.9.1999 whereas respondent no.3, promoted as such on 31.8.1999, joined his duties on 31.8.1999 itself and as such was senior to the applicant. Since inter-se seniority for the purpose of selection as ASTC against 70% quota, respondent no.3 ranks senior to the applicant therefore he has been so shown in Annexures A-1 to A-3. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. The Original Application filed by the applicants had been disposed of on 8.9.2010 by issuing direction to the respondents to give a fresh look to the matter and consider the case of the applicant as per rules and law for adjusting him against one of the two unfilled vacancies and if he is found to be fit otherwise, promote him from due date from which his juniors were promoted.
6. The order dated 8.9.2010 was challenged by Railways in CWP No. 5628 of 2011 which was allowed on 15.10.2015 on the premise that this Tribunal had placed reliance on Para 215 of IREM, Volume-I, Section B, which is rules governing promotion of Group C Staff which is related to selection for promotion on merit but in fact competition was for promotion to the post of Group B for which there is different process under Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, Chapter II, Rules governing promotion of subordinate staff Section A promotion of Group B post and procedure is referred to under paragraph 201.1, 204.1, 204.8 and 204.9. Thus, the matter was remanded back to this Tribunal to hear arguments of the parties afresh and pass judgment in the light of the observations made therein.
7. We have heard Mr. K.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel for the official respondents.
8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the date of promotion of the applicant was prior to the date of promotion of respondent no.3 and as such applicant has to be treated as senior to respondent no.3 and is entitled to promotion more so when he has secured more marks than the respondent no.3 in the selection process. On the other hand, Mr. Putney, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the scheme of things available in rule formulation does not support the claim of the applicant from any angle as per rule 203.5 of IREM, if employees from different streams are eligible to appear for the selection, their integrated seniority for the purpose of selection is to be determined on the basis of total length of non0-fortuitous service rendered in grade of Rs.2000-3200 and since date of joining of service by applicant was later than respondent no.3, he was junior to him and as such could not be empanelled for promotion.
9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties present carefully and examined the material on file.
10. It has come on record that in the selection process, respondent no.3 had been kept at Sr. No. 43, having secured 156 marks whereas Respondent No.3 had secured 157.5 marks yet kept at Sr. No. 44. In view of his higher position in seniority on the basis of joining of service, respondent no.3 was empanelled and promoted to the higher post.
11. It is undisputed that the post of ASTE is classified as Group B post. Chapter-II Section-A includes Rules 201 to 209. The relevant provisions of the rules are extracted for ready reference as under :-
201.1. All vacancies in Group 'B' are filled by promotion on the basis of selection of eligible Group 'C employees and also on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, wherever the scheme is in force. Where the scheme of LDCE is in force, selection is held to fill 70% of the vacancies and LDCE is held to fill the remaining 30% of the vacancies. (Railway Board's letter No. E(GP)/2005/2/69 dated 5.1.06].
204.1. Selection Procedure. The selection is based on a written test to adjudge the professional ability, viva-voce and assessment of record of service by the Selection Committee. The marks allotted and the qualifying marks under the different heads are as follows:-
Prescribed papers Max. Marks Qualifying Marks Remarks One paper on Professional subject and Estt. And Financial Rules.150 90
Out of 150 marks, the professional subject will carry at least 100 marks.
RECORD OF SERVICE AND VIVA-VOCE Max. Marks Qualifying Marks
i) Viva-voce 25 30 (including atleast 15 marks in the record of service).
ii) Record of service 25 ( Railway Board's letter No. E(GP)/2005/2/69 dated 5.1.06] 204.8. The successful candidates shall be arranged as follows :
(1) Those securing 80% marks and above graded as 'Outstanding'.
(2) Those securing between 60% marks and 79% marks graded as 'Good'.
204.9. The panel should consist of employees who had qualified in the selection, corresponding to the number of vacancies for which the selection was held. Employees securing the gradation 'Outstanding' will be placed on top followed by those securing the gradation, 'good' interse seniority within each group being maintained.
It is also relevant to reproduced para 203.5 as under :-
203.5 -Where employees from different streams are eligible to appear for the selection, their Integrated seniority for the purpose of selection should be determined on the basis of total length of non fortuitous service rendered in Grade 6500-10500 and above.
12. The extracted rules make it more than clear that the candidates securing 80% marks and above are graded as Outstanding and those securing between 60% marks and 79% marks graded as GoodAs per para 204.9, the panel should consist of employees who had qualified in the selection, corresponding to the number of vacancies for which the selection was held and employees securing the gradation Outstanding will be placed on top followed by those securing the gradation Good inter se seniority within each group being maintained. In this case, the Applicant has not secured 80% or more than 80% marks and, therefore, he could not have been put in the list of outstanding candidates category above the other selected candidates who secured less than 80% marks. Therefore, his case was to be considered only in the category of Good along with other selected candidates i.e. private Respondent. In so far as seniority is concerned, it is a fact that the Applicant joined his duties much after respondent no.3, even though issued appointment order earlier but he became member of service only from the date of joining the service. Thus, he was junior to private respondent no.3. Thus, he had no right, whatsoever, for inclusion of his name just because he secured higher percentage of marks than private respondent no.3 as he could claim so had he secured 80% or more than that 80% marks. Therefore, we do not find any grounds made out to tinker with the selection and appointment of respondent no.3.
13. In view of the above discussion, this O.A. is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
14. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 08.12.2016 HC* 1 (O.A.NO.586-HR-2008 Surinder Kumar Vs. UOI etc.)