KUTTIYAPPANversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                                 KUTTIYAPP AN
                                          v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 26, 1996

B               (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                 r

                                                                                       (
          Service Law :

           Railway Establishment Mallual-Rules 302, 306-lllter-se seni01ity be-
C   tween regularly promoted in-service candidates alld those selected by direct
    recrnitment-Held, For direct recruits date of first enfly and joining the post
    is the c1iteri<r-For promotees it would be the date Oil which they start working
    ill the post after completion of the process-Oiteiia under Rule 306 not
    applicable ill detennining illter-se se11io1ity between promotees alld direct
    recrnits.
D
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 18584 of 1996.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.96 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal at Madras in O.A. No. 1470 of 1993.
E
          S. Muralidhar for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Delay condoned.
F
         This SLP has been filed against the order of the Central Administra-
  tive Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 30, 1996 in QA No. 1470/93.
  The admitted position is that th1: petitioner along with others came to be
  selected by internal selection for promotion under 25% quota. Undoubted-
  ly, the process of selection was started in 1988 but the incumbents actually
                                                                                       c
G joined the promotional posts in October 1990. Though the process of
  selection for direct recruits under 25% quota reserved for the candidates
  from open 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
H has rejected their claim. Thus, this SLP.
                                        216
                        KUIBYAPPAN.v. U.O.L                             217

       It is contended for the petitioners, relying upon Rule 302 read with A
Rule 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual 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
                                                                             B
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 C
        on a Railway servant seniority above those who are already ap-
        pointed against regular posts. In categories of post partially filled
        by direct recruitment and partially 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 D
        the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit
        result subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority of promotees
        and 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 i11ter-se seniority of each E
        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
                                                                               F
        period of training.

        (No. E (NG) 1-78-SR-6-42 dt. 7.4.1982 ACS 132)

Similarly, Rule 306 reads as under :
                                                                               G
        "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 H
    218                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   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 the case of direct
    recruits their inter se seniority would start from the date of their entry into
B   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. Unless the training is completed, they cannot
c   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 senior to the
    subsequent selectees irrespective of the date of posting. That criteria is
D   inapplicable in determining the inter se seniority between the promotees
    and the direct recruits. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting the
    claim. It does not, therefore, warrant interference.

           The SLP is accordingly dismissed.

E   G.N.                                                       Petition dismissed.