Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Respondents have also cited the Hon'ble Apex Court verdict in Shankar Das v U.O.I (1991) 3 SCC 47 in support of their assertion that the applicants have no right to be appointed against select list just because their names appear in the select list. We agree with the contention of the respondents but it should not be forgotten that they have a right to be considered. This right is indefeasible. Also they have quoted the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court observation in Union Territory of Chandigarh v Dilbagh Singh and Ors (1993) 1 SCC 154 to buttress their stand. However, a specific rule namely para 203.5 of IREM which is statutory in nature has not been followed by the respondents and their action has been alleged to be arbitrary by the applicants, the said judgment is thus not relevant to the present case.

Continuing on the subject of integrated seniority list, it must be stated that employees from different streams of the respondents organisation are eligible to appear for selection as AE. Hence drawing up a common seniority is required which is termed as integrated seniority list. In an integrated seniority list feeder cadre employees from different streams like works and permanent way streams to which the applicants belong to and from other streams like drawing, Bridges, Track Machine, EWS, design etc are shown. Seniority has to be based on the length of service as laid down in para 203.5 of the IREM vol-1 which reads as under:

"Para 203.5 of IREM: Since employees from the different streams will be eligible to appear for the selection, their integrated seniority for purposes of the selection should be determined on the basis of total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in grade Rs. 6500- 10500 (R.S.) and above. In other words the date of appointment to the grade Rs. 6500-10500(R.S.) on a non fortuitous basis will be the criterion."

The UR employees though senior based on length service but they are shown as junior to SC/ST employees because of accelerated promotions. By doing so, respondents are disregarding their own instructions as laid down in Para 203.5 of IREM which is statutory in nature.

The respondents claim that the applicants are seeking plural reliefs. We do not agree with the same since seniority decides promotion and any infringement of the promotion which was legally due to the applicants would be a continuous cause of action. Hence, the relief sought are consequential and not plural.

XXIII) To sum up, respondents have acted against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in WP No. 9942/2010 and batch, by granting promotion to the 6 SC/ST employee without satisfying the preconditions laid down in Nagraj. Further orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.11724/2013 to show all the 8 vacancies as UR were not followed. The orders of the Hon'ble High Court were crystal clear that even if preconditions of M. Nagraj case were to be followed the SC/ST employees shall be promoted prospectively and not retrospectively. However, respondents have chosen to promote the SC/ST employees retrospectively from 2010 instead of 2017. Legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Nagraj, Pavitra, Manorama, Palaniswamy and U.P. Power Corporation have not been adhered to. Railway Board instructions contained in RBE 117/2016 have been violated. This is a serious violation as the Ld. Solicitor General of India has given an undertaking to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as adduced in RBE 117/2016 that reservation in promotions will not be resorted to as per orders of the DOPT vide letters dated 10.8.2010 and 1.9.2010. The later letter dt 1.9.2010 was circulated by the Railway Board as RBE/126/2010. Learned Solicitor General has also stated that any action taken on the basis of letters dated 10.8.2010/1.9.2010 will be construed as contempt of the Supreme Court. Respondents, we are sure, are aware of the consequences of going against the advice of the Ld. Solicitor General. Para 203.5 of IREM has not been followed. IREM instructions are statutory in nature and therefore violating such instructions is a matter of serious concern. Vijayawada division of SCR has reverted the SC/ST employees for not fulfilling the preconditions of Nagraj case, where as Secunderabad and Guntakal divisions of SCR have not reverted the SC/ST employees albeit they too have not complied with the preconditions of Nagraj. In the process, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there shall be a uniform policy for Railways was brazenly ignored. Respondents have disobeyed their own instructions which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not taken to kindly as per citations cited supra.