Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. He contends that it was cot open to the respondents to change the seniority at their whim and according to the relevant rules as the petitioner had entered the higher grade earlier to the respondents, he was senior to these respondents.

4. The writ petition has been opposed by the Union. The other respondents have rot chosen to tile any reply to the writ petition. It is denied by the Union that the petitioner could be taken to be senior to the concerning respondents. It is submitted that certain Journeymen of the former Jodhpur Railway and other employees of other Zones had made representation before the Railway Board and the Railway Board vide its letter dated 26-6-62 (Annexure R 1) and another letter dated 23.10.62 (Annexure-R 2) decided that the Apprentice Mechanics who had completed their period of training and were working is journeymen on 4-3-57 shall be entitled for re-adjustment of seniority in accordance with their date of completion of the apprenticeship. As regards the directly recruited Jonrneymen of the former E.P. Railway it was said that they shall be deemed to have completed their apprenticeship on the date of their joining as Journeyman for the purpose of seniority as Cnargeman as on 4-3-57. As regards provisional seniority list it was submitted that it was isseued to implement the orders contained in Annexures R 1 and R 2. The stand of the Union further is that the orders of the Railway Board as contained in Annexures R-1 and R-2 as well as the Railway Board's letter Annexures R 4 were rules made by the Railway Board in exercise of its powers under Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. I, made by the President is exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. It is submitted that it was felt that an anamolous situation by some persons being directly appointed as Journeymen & then as Chargeman while others being directly appointed as Chargeman on completion of their training as Apprensics had resulted and that was sought to be removed by the Railway Board. These orders as contained in the Annexures rejected to above, according to the Union, were rules made by the Railway Board in exercise of their powers under Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

10. The question arseis whether this letter is a rule within the meaning of Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume. I or it is merely a decision of the Railway Board, on a certain matter. The allied question is whether by this annexure R/4 the Railway Board are departing from the rule for seniority contained in Rule 2 of Chapter III of the Manual extracted above. Learned Counsel for the Union wants me to treat this as a rule. He relies on Jaisinghani v. Union of India : B.S. Vadera v. Union of India ; and Sham Sunder v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 112. In Jaisinghani v. Union of India Lordships considering the cases of Income-tax Officers, who were promotees and those who were direct recruits; there being a quota for pronotees and the direct recruits. The Government of India had in a letter dated 18-10-51 laid down the quota between the promotees and the direct recruits, The question arose whether this letter could be regarded as a statutory rule. In paragraph 13 their Lordships, while considering the argument of the learned Solicitor-General, made the following observations:

11. In B.S. Vadera v. Union of India their Lordships were considering certain schemes made by the Railway Board. These schemes were held to be rules made by the Railway Board in exercise of their powers under Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I Learned Counsel for the Union strongly relies on his case and, therefore, I may examine it closely.

12. One Shri B.S. Vadera had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for seeking to have quashed certain orders passed by the Railway Board and in particular an order reverting the petitioner as Upper Division Clerk, The petitioner's grievance was that he was holding the post of an Assistant from 1958 and yet he had been reverted as an Upper Division Clerk with effect from (sic). The stand of the Railway Board was that the petitioner's promotion was purely on a temporary and ad hoc basis pending the framing of the Railway Board's Secretariat Clerical Service (Re organisation) Scheme which was in contemplation at the material time. On 6-2-57, the Board framed the scheme. It was produced as Annexuie-4 to the reply of the Railway Board. The schema related to the method of promotion and other connected matters. Thereafter in accordance with the scheme a final panel was drawn up and it was after it that the impugned orders were passed. It was for that scheme that their Lordships were called upon to examine the question whether it could be regarded as a rule made by the Railway Board under Rule 167 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Their Lordships made the following observations:

13. In Sham Sunder v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 112 their Lordships were dealing with a case concerning cancellation or amtndment of approved panch of selected candidates and in that connection certain general directions of the Railway Board dated 4 8 53 came in for consideration. In para-5 their Lordships made the following observations:

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Railway Board or the General Manager had no power to amend the panel published on August 1, 1965. We are unable to accept this contention. The point was cot taken in the petition. When the contention was raised at the hearing of the petition, the learned Solicitor-General drew our attention to the letter of the Railway Board No. B/52/PM 2 34 dated August 4,1953 On the subject of cancellation or amendment of approved panels the Railway Board directed by this letter "that the panels once approved should not be cancelled or amended without reference to the authority next above the one that approved the panel. There is no controversy that the Railway Board had power to issue this general direction under Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code. In the present case the General Manager Northern Railway was the authority approving the panel, The Railway Board was the authority next above him. Under the general direction issued by the Board in its letter dated August 4, 1953, the General Manager was competent to amend the panel with the approval of the Railway Board In Srivastava v. N.E. Railway (1968) 3 SCR 61 at pp 64, 65 : AIR 1986 SC 1197 at pp, 1190 1200) the Court held that an amendment of an approved panel in accordance with a similar rule was in order.