Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 July, 1994
11. The second question however, is of utmost importance in as much as in A.B.C. issued by the official respondents it is clear that the Senior Goods Guards have not been placed at par with the Goods Guards in order to constitute feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Passenger Guard. The Railway Board's circular dated 27.1.1993 read with 14.7.1993, as referred to by the respondents, only provides that Senior Goods Guard shall be considered by lateral induction as Passenger Guard in the same Grade. Accordingly it is clear that induction of Senior Goods Guard as Passenger Guard, both in the same pay scale, is not vertical movement. It is lateral induction, meaning thereby posting from one post to another in the same pay scale and obviously it does not have any element of promotion. The word 'promotion' has been defined by the Apex Court in the case of 'Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab reported in Judgment Today 1994(4) SC page 303=1995(1) SLJ 187 (SC) and in Para 9 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--