Holding

The award of 15 seniority marks to candidates from different seniority units was illegal; selection must be made in accordance with Rule 219(g) and the CAT order was set aside.

Summary

M. Ramjayaram applied for the post of Law Assistant in South Central Railway and scored over 60% in the written test and performed well in the viva. Two other candidates were awarded an additional 15 marks for seniority under Rule 320 of the Railway Establishment Code, which gave them a higher total score and led to their selection, while the appellant was not selected. The appellant challenged the award of seniority marks as discriminatory and violative of Article 14, arguing that selection must follow the merit‑based criteria laid down in Rule 219(g) of the Railway Establishment Code. The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 320 applies when candidates belong to different seniority units and held that it does not, making the 15‑mark seniority award illegal. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that selection be made strictly according to Rule 219(g). The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the 15 marks awarded for seniority under Rule 320 can be given to candidates from different seniority units in the selection of Law Assistants.
Whether awarding such seniority marks violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the selection must be conducted solely on the basis of the merit criteria prescribed in Rule 219(g) of the Railway Establishment Code.

Subjects

Railway recruitmentseniority marksArticle 14discriminationselection criteriaRailway Establishment CodeLaw Assistantmerit based selection

Judgment

~ I
I

A M. RAMJAYARAM
v.
GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS.

MARCH 15, 1996

B [K RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.)

Railway Establishment Code : Rules 219(g) and 321Hnterpretation
and applicability of

C Service Law-Selection-Awarding preferential marks for
seniority-Validity of-Railways-Recruitment of Law Assistants:-Appe//ant
securing higher marks in written test and viva voce examination-Contenting
respondents ·awarded I 5 marks for seniority-As a result appellant not
selected-Challenge to award of 15 marks as discriminatory-Held weightage
of marks given was illegal-Non-selection of appellant held arbitrary-Selec-
D tion should be done in accordance with criteria laid down in Rule 219
(g}--As contesting respondents were not from the same unit but of different
units Rule 320 held inapplicable-Directions to consider selection according
to Rules.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5085 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 1030 of 1992.

F C. Sitaramiah and Ms. Vrindha Dhar for the Appellants.

R. Venugopal Reddy, Arvind K. Sharma and Ms. Indra Sawhney for
the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted.

Though notice has been sent to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it has •
been served only on respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In respect of 5th respondent,
neither A.D. card not served letter has been received back. In the cir-
H cumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on the 5th
494
I M. RAMJAYARAMv. GEN. MANAGER, so urn CENTRAL RLY. 495

respondent. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel A

The only controversy in this case is : whether the contesting respon-
dents are entitled to be given preferential 15 marks over the appellant in
selection as Law Assistants. It is an admitted position that in the written
examination held by the respondents 1 and 2, the appellant had secured
more than 60% in written examination and in viva-voce he had fared well B
In view of the fact that the contesting respondents have been assigned 15
marks for their seniority, he could not get selected. The appellant has
challenged awarding of 15 marks as discriminatory and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. This Court has issued notice on August 28, 1995 to
the following effect : C

"It would appear that Rule 219 (g) of the Railway Establishment
Code provides procedure for selection on the basis of over all
merit. The Tribunal in this case proceeded on the basis of awarding
marks to find the suitability of the candidates for selection, D
awarded 50 per cent of marks to professional ability; personality,
academic qualifications, leadership quality - 20 marks; record of
service - 15 marks; seniority - 15 marks. The grievances of the
petitioner, though he is having requisite five years service other
persons, having higher scale of pay is preferred. He cannot be
discriminated on the basis of having higher scale of pay and E
seniority cannot be adjudged on that basis. It is contended by Mr.
C. Sitaramiah, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that
the seniority has to be adjudged with reference to the length of
service but not on the basis of scale of pay being drawn and the
persons drawing higher scale of pay cannot be put above the F
candidates who are drawing lesser scale of pay by reason of the
fact that the persons now made in the list have been drawn from
different sources ...... disability and discrimination to some of the
departments. The test laid down is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
To consider this question, notice is issued 11 •
G
The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit. It is ad-
mitted therein that the appellant had secured higher marks in the written
and viva-voce. It is stated that in view of Rule 320 of the Railway Estab- .
lishment Code, the respondents are seniors to the appellant. While the
appellant is drawing scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040 respondents are drawing H
\
I

496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996)3 S.C.R.

A scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2660 and thereby they became seniors. On that
premise they were given 15 marks over the appellant. As a consequence,
they came to be selected.

Rule 320 of the Railway Establishment Code reads as under :

B "Relative Seniority of Employees in an Intermediate Grade
Belonging to o·ifferent Seniority Units Appearing For a Selec-
tion/Non-Selection Post In High Grade.

When a Post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled by
considering staff of different seniority units, the total length of
c continuous service in the same or equivalent grade held by the
employees shall be the determining factor for assigning inter-
seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation of an employee
with lesser length of continuous service as compared to another
unconfirmed employee with longer length of continuous service.
D This is subject to the proviso that only non-fortuitous service
should be taken into account for this purpose".

A reading of that rule would indicate that in assigning inter-se-
seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation of an employee the
E continuous length of service in the higher scale of pay was given preference
to the seniority over the persons who are drawing lesser scale of pay in a
selection as well as non-selection post to be filled by considering the staff
of different seniority units. The said rule has no application to the facts in
this case. The selection is required to be done on the basis of the criteria
laid down under Rule 219(g) of the Railway Manual. Selection should be
F made primarily on the basis of overall merit but for guidance of Selection
Board the factors to be taken into account and the relative weightage laid
down was as under :

"219(g) of the Indian Railways Manual states selection should be
made primarily on the basis of overall merit but for guidance of
G
Selection Board the factors to be taken into account and their
relative weightage are laid down as below :

Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks

H (i) Professional ability. 50 30
t
I

M. RAMJAYARAMv. GEN.MANAGER,SOUTIICENTRALRLY. 497

(ii) Personality, address A
Leader-ship and academic
qualification. 20

(iiij A record of service. 15

(iv) Seniority. 15 B
In this sir.ce the contesting respondents are not from the same unit but of
different units, Rule 320 stands excluded, weightage of 15 marks for
seniority given to the respondents obviously is illegal. Therefore, there is
force in the contention of the appellant that his non-selection tantamounts
to arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. C
We set aside the order of the CAT, Hyderabad made in O.A,. No. 1039/92
dated March 21,1995. The respondent .tre directed to consider the selec-
tion according to rules and make appointment according to law.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
D
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.