Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It has further to be noted that the appointments to the posts of Traffic Apprentices is by direct recruitment to the extent of 25 per cent of the annual vacancies in the posts of Section Controllers who are in the grade of Rs.200-300 (PS) and in other posts in the same cadre in the Yard and Station categories. This was according to the scheme prepared by the Railway Board for improving control organisations on the Railways. The Traffic Apprentices thus directly recruited are, on completion of the training, first absorbed as Assistant Movement Inspectors etc. in the grade of Rs. 150-225 and are eligible for promotion to the grade of Rs.200-300 (PS)/Rs.250-380 (AS) in the normal manner after selection as Section Controllers, Station Masters, Assistant Station Masters, Yard Masters etc. provided they complete at least one year's service in the grade of Rs. 150-225. Such promotions are, however, to be considered against 25 per cent of the annual vacancies. The Railway Board had further clarified the position that 25 per cent of the total annual vacancies in the grade Of Rs.200-300 (PS)/ Rs.250-380 (AS) were to be earmarked for Traffic Appren- tices, and if during any particular year it was not found possible to utilise this quota fully on account of suffi- cient number of Traffic Apprentices being not eligible for promotion (owing to their not having completed one year's service in the grade of Rs.150-225), the deficit was to be carried forward to the next selection. By their further letter of December 18, 1963, the Railway Board directed that with immediate effect, the Traffic Apprentices on successful completion of the three years' training, should be straight- away brought on the scale of Rs.200-300 (PS)/ Rs.250-380 (AS) instead of being first absorbed in the scale of Rs. 150225 (PS)/Rs.205-270 (AS) as prevalent then.

5. It appears that the respondent's grievance in the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was that their seniority in the cadre of Relieving Transportation Assistants was not correctly fixed according to the quota rule of 25:75, either because the quota rule was not ob- served properly or the unfilled vacancies in the 25 per cent quota reserved for them were not carried forward from 1954 onwards. Hence, they wanted their seniority list as Traffic Apprentices to be recast according to quota and rota rule, and the seniority list which was prepared allegedly contrary to the said rule, quashed. The learned Single Judge had rejected the petition on the ground that they had approached the Court too late and, therefore, their petition suffered from laches. The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 220 of 1972 did not agree with the learned Single Judge and decided the matter on merits, and gave the finding that the Northern Railways had for the first time communicated by their letter of December 26, 1967 to all the Divisional Superintendents that it was decided that the seniority of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to December 18, 1963 would be determined from the date of their promotion to the grade of Rs.250-380 and not according to their quota against the vacancies which occured from 1.4.1954 onwards, the date from which the direct recruitment of the Traffic Apprentices was permitted. The Court held that according to the correct interpretation of the various letters of the Railway Admin- istration, Traffic Apprentices were to be assigned seniori- ty, vis-a-vis rankers (promotees) according to their roster position, taking into account the positions reserved for them, viz., 25 per cent of the actual annual vacancies with effect from 1.4.1954 carried forward in subsequent years. The Court also held that the Railway Administration subse- quently modified its instructions contained in their letter of December 26, 1967 and issued another letter on April 19, 1968 stating that the Traffic Apprentices would be deemed to have been promoted from the dates they were eligible provided vacancies were available in the particular year for theft absorption and that their interests would be protected by giving benefit of pro forma fixation of pay etc. A further letter of December, 18, 1968 thereafter followed from the headquarters of the Northern Railways in which it was made clear that the seniority had to be fixed with reference to the dates from which the Traffic Appren- tices would have been promoted in the grade of Rs.250-380 had the quota of the vacancies from 1954 onwards always been calculated correctly, i.e., the vacancies from 1954 onwards should always have been taken into account to work out 25 per cent quota for the Traffic Apprentices. On these find- ings, the Division Bench stated as follows:

"We may state here that all the Rankers who are likely to be affected by the decision in this case are party respondents. No right of any innocent third party is involved in the case. We are 'also not quashing any rule executive instruc- tion or letter of the Railway Administration or any seniori- ty list issued by the earlier than February 1971. The Su- preme Court has not laid down any rigid rule of limitation in entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court was pleased to observe that it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonably delayed if the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for a similar civil action. Thus, if there are any exceptional facts and circumstances even the delay beyond the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy may be reasonable or justified and the writ petition may still be entertained. The Court may, however, be reluctant to entertain such writ petitions but that does not mean that the court has no jurisdiction. If we are right in holding that the cause of action arose in February 1971, or even earlier in April 1968, then there is no question of any delay. But, if we are not, even then on the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned single Judge that the writ petition is enormous- ly delayed. By issuing the writ of mandamus in this case, we are only setting at rest the uncertainty and disparity which is prevailing in the various divisions of the Northern Railway in the matter of fixation of inter seniority of Traffic Apprentices and Rankers. The Railway Administration have themselves admired that in Allahabad division of Northern Railway, Seniority has been granted to Traffic Apprentices according to their quota against the vacancies which occurred from 1.4.1954 onwards. In case of commercial apprentices who are similarly situated seniority has been assigned vis-a-vis remain according to their quota on the basis of their roster positions, 1, 5, 9 etc. There is no reason why the appel- lants should be deprived of what is legally due to them even if they have approached this Court after some delay. For the reasons stated above, the Letters Patent Appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned single judge on ques- tion No. 1 is set aside and reversed and we hold that the writ petition was not belated and was not liable to dismiss- al on the ground of laches. The finding on question No.2, having been upheld by us, the appellants, are entitled to the grant of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to fix the seniority of Traffic Apprentices, in the light of the observations made by the learned single Judge and as upheld by us. The seniority list, Annexure E attached to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent Railway Administra- tion shall draw the seniority list within 3 months from today and proceed to make confirmations and/or further promotions in the higher grades in accordance with the law, rules and orders in force from time to time. In the circum- stances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs."

8. Two additional facts need be stated. The combined seniority list which was prepared in 1983 of Class-III posts for promotion to Class-II posts was finalised in March 1987 and was made the basis of the postponed selection to Class- II service as per orders of the Tribunal and panel was issued on 13.3.1987. Thereafter, on the basis of orders passed by the Tribunal on 9.12.1987, the Traffic Apprentices who became eligible for promotion in the first 'batch after revision of seniority were considered by a Review Departmen- tal Promotion Committee and interpolated in. the Class-II panels of 1972-73 and 1975-76. As a result, the seniority of the personnel from the Commercial Department was affected since direct recruit-Traffic Apprentices from the Traffic and Transportation Department were given seniority according to the quota and rota rule from 1954 onwards. Hence, M/s. A.P. Chowdhary and K.N. Saxena, officers belonging to the Commercial Department approached the Tribunal by their applications Nos. 360 of 1988 and 936 of 1989 respectively, challenging the new seniority list, and also on the ground that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings.