Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.2 That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents to recast the seniority list afresh   on   the   basis   of   principle   laid   down   by Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   in  NR   Parmar Case   and   DOPT   OM   dated   04.03.2014   as referred to above without any further delay. 8.3 That   the   Respondents   further   be   directed   to issue   Corrigendum/amendment/Correction   slip in   Indian   Railway   Establishment   Manual Volume­1,   henceforth   in   view   of   new Guidelines/directives   of   DOPT   OM   dated 04.03.2014   as   contained   in   Annexure   A/11 which  is  based   on the  principle/law  laid  down by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   in   NR Parmar   Case   regarding   fixation   of   inter­se­ seniority   between   Direct   Recruitees   and Promotees Officers.

26. As   far   as   the   second   question   is   concerned   we   may note that we have already quoted the prayer clause of OA No.460 of 2016 filed before the CAT.  In the said OA there is not   even   a   whisper   of   a   challenge   to   the   policy   of   giving weightage   to   the   promotees.     In   fact   that   issue   was   not raised before the CAT.  The case set up by the direct recruits before   the   CAT   was   that   since   the   requisition   for recruitment had been issued on 23.10.2007, they should be granted   seniority   from   that   date   in   view   of   the   judgment rendered by this Court in  N.R. Parmar’s  case (supra) read with DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014.  It has been urged by Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the direct recruit that prayer 8.3 in which it is prayed that corrigendum/amendment/corrections   slip   be   issued   in IREM  Volume­I  is  itself a prayer to quash the said IREM. We are unable to accept this contention.  If the direct recruit wanted to lay challenge to the policy of giving weightage to promotees then the basis for the challenge had to be made in   the   original   application   and   the   rule   granting   such weightage   had   to   be   specifically   challenged   in   the   prayer clause.  The promotees who were liable to be affected should have   been   arrayed   as   respondents.     Such   a   challenge cannot be entertained from the back door by merely alleging that corrigendum/ amendments/corrections to the IREM be issued.  Neither the corrigendum, nor the amendment or the corrections   could   result   in   the   quashing   of   rule   granting weightage.   Furthermore, if prayer 8.3 is read as a whole, what is prayed is that the correction be made with a view to bring   the   IREM   in   line   with   DoPT   OM   dated   04.03.2014, which   is   based   on   the   principle   of   law   framed   in  N.R. Parmar’s case (supra).