Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
Respondents have also cited the Hon'ble Apex Court verdict in Shankar Das v U.O.I (1991) 3 SCC 47 in support of their assertion that the applicants have no right to be appointed against select list just because their names appear in the select list. We agree with the contention of the respondents but it should not be forgotten that they have a right to be considered. This right is indefeasible. Also they have quoted the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court observation in Union Territory of Chandigarh v Dilbagh Singh and Ors (1993) 1 SCC 154 to buttress their stand. However, a specific rule namely para 203.5 of IREM which is statutory in nature has not been followed by the respondents and their action has been alleged to be arbitrary by the applicants, the said judgment is thus not relevant to the present case.
Continuing on the subject of integrated seniority list, it must be stated that employees from different streams of the respondents organisation are eligible to appear for selection as AE. Hence drawing up a common seniority is required which is termed as integrated seniority list. In an integrated seniority list feeder cadre employees from different streams like works and permanent way streams to which the applicants belong to and from other streams like drawing, Bridges, Track Machine, EWS, design etc are shown. Seniority has to be based on the length of service as laid down in para 203.5 of the IREM vol-1 which reads as under:
―Para 203.5 of IREM: Since employees from the different streams will be eligible to appear for the selection, their integrated seniority for purposes of the selection should be determined on the basis of total length of non-fortuitous service rendered in grade Rs. 6500- 10500 (R.S.) and above. In other words the date of appointment to the grade Rs. 6500-10500(R.S.) on a non fortuitous basis will be the criterion. ‖ The UR employees though senior based on length service but they are shown as junior to SC/ST employees because of accelerated promotions. By doing so,
44 OA 636/2017 & batch respondents are disregarding their own instructions as laid down in Para 203.5 of IREM which is statutory in nature.
XX) In addition, as cited in paras supra, Hon'ble Apex court observation in K. Manorama case, that an SC employee getting selected in open competition on own merit can be shown against UR vacancy but not in respect of promotion effected on the basis of seniority cum suitability. The selection to AE is based on seniority cum suitability and therefore Manorama case applies, which the respondents failed to follow. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in WP no 2773 of 2012 has quashed Railway Board order RBE no 126/2010 wherein SC/ST employees were ordered to be adjusted against UR vacancy on own merit or reservation roster irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non selection method. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan when challenged in SLP 219 of 2015 filed by the Railways, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.1.2015. Therefore, respondents have to comply with the said judgment without any iota of doubt, which is in favour of the applicants.