PETITIONER:
KUTTIYAPPAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Delay condoned.
This SLP has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 30, 1996 in OA No.1470/93. The admitted position is that the petitioner along with others came to be selected by internal selection for promotion under 25% quota. Undoubtedly, the process of selection was started in 1988 but the incumbents actually joined the promotional posts in October 1990. Though the process of selection for direct recruits under 25% quota reserved for the candidates from upon market was started in 1989, they came to join the posts after completion of the selection process earlier to the petitioner & others in August 1990. The petitioners claimed seniority over them. The Tribunal has rejected their claim. Thus, this SLP.
It is contended for the petitioners, relying upon Rule 302 read with Rule 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Mahual that since the process of selection had been made earlier to the direct recruits, the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the direct recruits since they were selected earlier to the respondents and, therefore, they should be made seniors to the direct recruits. We find no force in the contention. Rule 302 reads as under:
"302. Seniority in initial
recruitment Grades - Unless
specifically stated otherwise, the
seniority among the incumbents of a
post in a grade is governed by the
date of appointment to the grade.
The grant of pay higher than the
initial pay should not, as a rule,
confer on a Railway servant
seniority above those who are
already appointed against regular
posts. In categories of post
partially filled by promotion, the
criterion for determination of
seniority should be the date of
regular promotion after due process
in the case of promotees and the
date of joining the working post
after due process in the case of
direct recruits among themselves.
When the dates of entry into a
grade of promoted railway servants
and direct recruits are the same
they should be put in alternate
positions, the promotees being
senior to the direct recruits,
maintaining interse seniority of
each group"
Note- In case the training period
of a direct recruit is curtailed in
the exigencies of service, the date
of joining the working post in case
of such a direct recruit shall be
the date we would have normally
come to a working post after
completion of the prescribed period
of training.
(No.E(NG) 1-78-SR-6-42 dt.7.4.1982
ACS 132) Similarly, Rule 306 reads as under:
"306. Candidates selected for
appointment at an earlier selection
shall be senior to those selected
later irrespective of the dates of
posting, except in the case covered
by para 305."
A reading of these Rules would clearly indicate that the process of selection bears no relevance. What is material in determination of the inter se seniority between regularly promoted in-service candidates and those selected by direct recruitment during the process of selection is that in the case of the former the seniority starts from date on which they joined the working post after completion of the process while in case of direct recruits their inter se seniority would start from the date their entry into the grade. Therefore, as regards the direct recruits, the date of first entry and joining the post is the criteria, in the case of the promotees it would be the date on which they start working in the post after completion of the process. It is not in dispute that training is one of the conditions for completion of the process. Until the training is completed, they cannot work on regular basis in the promotional post.
As regards Rule 306, it regulates in an area where the selected candidates were appointed earlier to the candidates who subsequently came to be selected and the earlier candidates become seniors to the subsequent selected irrespective of the date of posting. That criteria is inapplicable in determining the inter se seniority between the promoters and the direct recruits. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting the claim. It does not, therefore, warrant interference.
The SLP is accordingly dismissed.