Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It should be borne in mind that the petitioner was recruited for appointment when the South Indian Railway was a separate unit of administration and before it was integrated with other units to constitute the Southern Zone of the Indian Railways. That integration created problems of its own, with which, however, I need not concern myself in these proceedings.

6. The posts of the Assistant Station Masters constituted a "class" within a "group" as defined by Rule 2 in Appendix II of the Code. The Assistant Station Master's was classified as a non-selection post. It was common ground that the normal method of recruitment to that class of post was by promotion from the clerical and other subordinate services. The petitioner, however, along with some others was recruited direct to fill the post of an Assistant Station Master. The validity of that recruitment was never in issue in these proceedings; but it is necessary to explain what led to that recruitment, which brought in its wake certain administrative problems.

7. To comply with the terms of the award of the adjudicator, who had been appointed by the Government, it was necessary to increase to a considerable extent the strength of the cadre of Assistant Station Masters and Signallers. The Administration apparently felt that depletion of the clerical and other services all of a sudden by selecting from among them alone candidates for appointment as Assistant Station Masters should be avoided to the extent possible. Recourse was therefore had to direct recruitment, and in September, 1948, the Administration of the South Indian Railway asked for the recruitment of about 300 candidates. The petitioner was one of those selected, and he was eventually appointed along with others after the preliminary period of training. The petitioner was appointed on 25th August, 1949; and the scale of pay of the post to which he was appointed was Rs. 64--4--170.

13. Thus one of the results of the order, dated 25th April, 1952, was that the petitioner among others dropped from Rs. 64--4--170 scale of pay to Rs. 60--4--150. In paragraph 11 of his affidavit the petitioner alleged that, though subsequently orders were passed that the petitioner should be restored to the old scale of pay Rs. 64--4--170, these orders had not been given effect to. This was, however, rectified by the Administration in December, 1954. The relevant portion of that order ran:

In accordance with the decision of the Railway Board. . . . direclly recruited Probationary Station Masters are allowed to retain their designation as Assistant Station Master in scale of Rs. 64--170 but switched on to the duties of Clerks-in-charge. Accordingly the Probationary Station Masters working as C.N.Cs. are designated "Assistant Station Master" (Working as C.N.C. 1 or 2) and this designation should be adopted in all future correspondence with this office to avoid confusion.

17. The main contention of Mr. Nambiar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the regulation of a seniority by the impugned order, dated 25th April, 1952, contravened Rule 2 embodied in Circular No. 343, dated nth August, 1949, is in my opinion well-founded. That was the only rule which regulated seniority of non-gazetted railway servants, of whom the petitioner was one, to which my attention was drawn. It was no doubt a rule framed by the General Manager, South Indian Railway, but the validity of that rule could not be challenged and in fact was never assailed. Under Rule 157 of the Code read with Rule 10 of Appendix II-A of the Code, the General Manager had the requisite authority to frame rules to determine the seniority of the members of the railway staff. It is equally true that that rule was promulgated when the South Indian Railway was an independent unit of administration and before that unit was integrated with the Southern Railway. That integration left unaffected the seniority of the railway servants inter se within the old units; and it is only that seniority that is in issue now in these proceedings. It was not the case of anyone that Rule 2 of Circular No. 343 stood abrogated on the integration of the railways. Rule 2 categorically stated that the only factor that determined seniority as amongst those who had been confirmed in a given grade or class was the date of confirmation. In these proceedings I am concerned only with the class of Assistant Station Masters. The directions given in the impugned order, dated 25th April, 1952, were obviously inconsistent with Rule 2 of Circular No. 343. Whatever was the channel of recruitment to the class of Assistant Station Masters, under Rule 2, only the date of confirmation regulated the seniority.