Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this case are as follows: The applicant was selected by the UPSC for appointment to Indian Railway Service Mechanical Engineer Officers 1973 examination (direct batch). On being qualified he was appointed to the post of AME (Probationer) w.e.f. 21.10.74. During the course of his employment he got several promotions and at present working as CPO, Eastern Railway, Headquarters, Calcutta. According to rules, for direct recruitment to the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineer Group 'A', two methods are applied, i.e. 50% through combined Engineering Services Examination for Graduate Engineers; and the rest 50% through the Special Class Railway Apprenticeship (SCRA) examination. An appointee (sic) Special Class Railway Apprentice has to undergo practical and theoretical training for a period of 4 years at the Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Jamalpur. As per rules, Special Class Railway Apprentices have to pass either Part-I and Part II of CEI (London) or Sections A and B of the AMIE (India) Examination within the said period of 4 years. Additionally, such Apprentices are also required to pass the examination conducted by the said Institute at Jamalpur. After passing of the examination such Apprentices are appointed as Probationers in the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME). In other words, clearance of all the papers of Sections A and B of the AMIE (India) or Part I and Part II of CEI (London) is mandatory for appointment in the IRSME. In this regard, the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) issued instruction in April, 1970 regarding the date of appointment as a probationer of the apprentices who fails to pass the aforesaid examination within the period of 4 years. According to the said instruction dated 10.4.70 (Annexure-A) such apprentices get another extended year for passing such examination, otherwise their appointment is liable to be terminated.

3. Respondent No. 3, Shri Khosla was appointed as Special Class Railway Apprentice on 13.1.1970, i. e. prior to the applicant on the basis of his selection in the SCRA examination of 1969. He joined service on 13.1.70 and according to the extant rules he has to complete the requisite examination within 4 years, i.e. within 12.1.74. However, he could not clear the examination in full within those 4 years and, therefore, he was granted one year extension and he cleared such examination in 1975, i.e. beyond the extended period of one year, i.e. after 5 years and 2 months. The applicant, however, cleared the requisite examination within 4 years of his appointment as probationer.

12. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed as probationer AME on 21.10.74 after qualifying the requisite examination as Special Class Railway Apprentice. He cleared the requisite examination of Part A and Part B of AMIE (India) within 4 years and was appointed to the service on regular basis on 21.10.74. As against this, respondent No. 3 was appointed on 13.1.70, but he could pass the examination on 10.3.75, i.e. after 5 years and 2 months although he has to pass such examination within 4 years, i. e. 12.1.74. Initially, the seniority position of the respondent No. 3 was fixed 8th position below the applicant. However, it is alleged that after the decision of the Principal Bench, the position of the respondent No. 3 was upgraded much above the applicant, i.e. about 19th position. This is because the respondent No. 3 has been granted seniority on completion of 4 years on 12.1.74, although he did not pass all the examinations. According to the applicant, this is contrary to the instruction of the Railway Board of 10.4.70. The applicant has mainly claimed benefit of the decision of the Allhabad Bench in O.A. 489/1989 dated 26.4.2002 A.K. Misra v. UOI and Ors. In that case Shri A.K. Misra of 1966 batch claimed that in respect of P. Bahadur of his batch (1966 batch) respondent No. 3 in that O.A. was granted seniority from the date of completion of 4 years and therefore he should also be granted similar benefit. The Tribunal vide its judgment directed the Rly. Authorities to fix the seniority of the respondent No. 3 from 10.3.74 regarding date of appointment only after completion of the requisite examination and accordingly redrawn the seniority list correctly. This decision was implemented by the respondent authorities whereby the date of passing of the examination was taken into account redrafting the seniority list of 1966 batch officials. The applicant in this case also claims similar treatment so that he would regain his seniority above respondent No. 3 i.e. by fixing seniority from the date of passing the examination in full.

22. Number of points have been raised by the parties in the O.A. The first point raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent is regarding the jurisdiction of this Bench to adjudicate this O.A. in view of the judgment passed by C.A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi on 14.8.99 in O.A. No. 945/1994 which was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court on 14.12.2000. The order of the Principal Bench was to decide the seniority of respondent No. 3 as per rules. The applicant in the present O.A. was not a party to the decision in O.A. No. 945/1994. As the applicant was not a party to the said decision and on being adversely affected by the decision of the Principal Bench he has filed this O.A. No. 271/2006. In view of the decision in the case of Sreedhar S. v. State of Karnataka 2004 SCC (L&S) 882 and in the case of K. Ajit Babu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) the applicant is entitled to file this O.A. and this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. The second point raised by the respondents is regarding limitation The principle of law of limitation holds that limitation begins from the date of cause of action and in the present case it has been argued by the applicant that he had come to know about the revised relative seniority position of respondent No. 3, to the disadvantage of the applicant, only from the "Classified list of Gazetted Establishment" published in 2005. From Para 8 of the rejoinder to the application against the reply of respondent No. 3 and the DRM, North Western Railway's letter No. 727E/AKM/ADRM/JU/EIG dated 10.5.06 and the Railway Board's letter dated 12.4.2001 and 4.3.2002 revising relative seniority of respondent No. 3 it appears that those letters were not received in the office of the DRM, N.W. Railway, Jodhpur where the applicant was working during the period 1999-2002. As such the present application is neither hit by 'waiver' nor barred by the law of limitation. The third point is regarding the date of appointment of respondent No. 3 who was appointed as Special Class Railway Apprentice on the basis of the examination in 1969. He was inducted as Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers with effect from 10.3.1975. Initially his seniority was placed at Srl. No. 96 i.e. below Sri Girish Kumar (Srl. No. 95) and above Sri P.K. Roy (Srl. No. 97). In compliance of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 945/1994 the seniority of Sri Khosla respondent No. 3 was refixed at 67 i.e. below Sri A. Sud (Srl. No. 66) and above Sri C.B. Midha (Srl. No. 67) by order No. 94/E/GR(1)/36/3 dated 4.3.2002. The condition of service of SCRA are governed by the Railway Board Circular No. E 70-E(GR)/l/5 dated 10.4.70. The recruitment rule for SCRAs, inter alia provides that Apprentices should pass either Para (1) or (2) of AMIME (London) or Section 1 or 2 of AMIE (India) within 4 years of Apprenticeship, is allowed one more year to complete the 2 parts/sections of the Examination. His Apprenticeship being extended accordingly and the Apprenticeship of one who fails to clear the qualification within the extended period is liable to be terminated. It has also been laid down that the date of passing of the examination or completion of 4 years of Apprenticeship, whichever is later, shall be deemed to be the date of appointment for the purpose of seniority. As such as per the extant rules, the respondent No. 3 cannot be given seniority prior to the date of passing of the said examination as otherwise it would tantamount to conferring Graduate Degree to an undergraduate and an undergraduate being inducted into Group-A service which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Principal Bench in its decision had held that there had been certain discriminations, as earlier in respect of P. Bahadur and Others seniority had been given after four years of their service and not after clearing the examination. The Principal Bench as well as the High Court of Delhi had therefore passed an order so as to redraw the seniority of respondent No. 3 as per rules . Neither the principal Bench nor the High Court of Delhi in their orders referred to above, set aside the Railway Board's circular dated 10.4.70. On the contrary the respondents were directed to fix the seniority as per rules.