Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Per Dinesh Sharma, A.M:- The present application is against the provisional seniority list of Deputy Station Manager/ Station Master/Traffic Inspector/Yard Master (Annexure A/1) in pay Band Rs. 9300-34800/- + GP Rs. 4200/- whereby the private respondents no. 6 to 10 have been shown senior to the applicants. The challenge is mainly on grounds of facts stated in the following paragraph: -

2. The applicants were selected for the post of Traffic Apprentices vide order dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure A/5) following an examination held on

02.02.2008/09.08.2008. They were sent on training by order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure A/6). However, following the order of the Tribunal in OA 266/2010 dated 20.04.2010 the respondents no. 4 to 6 were also selected, as they had also appeared for the same examination for the post of Traffic Apprentices, by order dated 15.12.2010 which was issued "in suppression of the result issued vide this office letter of even number dated 13.04.2010" (Annexure A/8). These private respondents were, admittedly, working in the higher pay scale even before their selection (in Station Master's pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-) in comparison with the applicant's pay scale (of Rs. 4500-7000/-). Since they were selected as Traffic Apprentices after the applicants, and also joined to that post after the applicants, the applicants' claim is that their position in the seniority list of Deputy Station Master/Station Master/Traffic Inspector/Yard Master (in Pay Band Rs. 9300- 34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- should be below that of the applicants. They have also requested that, in the alternative, their seniority position should be as per the merit position secured in the examination through which both

-3- OA/050/00718/15 the applicants and the private respondents were selected to the post of Traffic Apprentices.

3. The official respondents have denied the claim of the applicants. According to them, subsequent to the written examination held on 02.08.2008 and 09.08.2008 five persons (applicants) were found suitable and subsequently six more (private respondents) were declared suitable. Since these six private respondents were already in Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- prior to their selection, their seniority was fixed at their existing place on completion of training. The applicants cannot be assigned seniority over that of the private respondents, just because of their having completed training earlier since training of the employees is purely according to administrative convenience. They have also quoted RBE 107/2012 para-2

-4- OA/050/00718/15 joined earlier should rank senior to the persons who joined later. Just because the private respondents were already in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- they should not rank automatically senior to the applicants since they had not completed the training as required under law.

5. We have gone through the pleadings and heard the learned counsels for both the sides. During the course of the arguments, the Sr. Advocate for the applicant drew attention to Rule 303 of IREM Vol. I according to which if any recruitment is done by the Railway Recruitment Board or any other recruitment authority the seniority position of the selectees from such examination will be as per the order of merit secured in the examination. The learned Advocate for the respondents strongly refuted this and argued that the selection process following the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Traffic Apprentice cannot be considered as a selection by the Railway Recruitment Board or any similar recruitment authority. The learned Advocate for the applicants also cited case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. where it was decided that rules of a selection process cannot be changed midway through the selection process. He also quoted the case of Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Anr. (which is a case of appointment on deputation), S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills Pvt. Limited Vs. UOI & Ors (where the Court decided against giving retrospective effect to take away vested rights) and Anand Kumar Vs. Haryana Urban development Authority and Anr.(P&H) (again holding that vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively by administrative instructions). None