Holding

Promotion under the 1985 Railway Board circular is legal and the seniority list placing later promotees above the appellants is unlawful, requiring a fresh seniority list.

Summary

The appellants, originally appointed as cleaners and later promoted to Fireman Grade A under Railway Board Circular dated 25‑June‑1985, challenged a seniority list that placed later promotees—selected through written examinations—above them. The respondents argued that the promotees, having qualified under an earlier 17‑December‑1982 circular, were more efficient and thus deserved seniority. The Supreme Court examined Clause 5.1 of the 1985 circular, which mandates promotion to the next grade solely on the basis of service‑record scrutiny without any written or viva‑voce test. It held that the appellants’ promotion was lawful and that seniority in a grade is determined by length of continuous service unless a rule states otherwise. Consequently, the impugned seniority list was quashed and the respondents were directed to prepare a fresh list placing the appellants above the promotees. The appeal was allowed and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Issues considered

Whether promotion to Fireman Grade A under Railway Board Circular dated 25‑June‑1985 without a written test is valid.
Whether seniority in a particular grade can be altered to favor promotees selected through a written examination despite earlier promotions.
Whether seniority in a grade is determined solely by length of continuous service in the absence of a specific rule.

Subjects

Service LawPromotionSeniorityRailway Board CircularSelection PostAdministrative Law

Judgment

A NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA AND ANR.

UNION OF JNDIA AND ORS.

MAY 9, 2001

B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.].

Service Law :

Railway Board Circular dated 25.6.1985-Clause 5.1-Promotion-
C Employees due for promotion, eligible for promotion without any written or
viva-voce test-Appella111s promoted to Fireman Grade A 011 scrutiny of
service record5 without any written test-Written test held subsequently-
Promotees qualified the test and were also promoted as Fireman Grade A-
Impugned seniority list placed such promotees higher than appellants-
Tribunal upheld seniority list-On appeal Held, Board took positive decision
D lo pl'omote employees due for promotion on scrutiny of records without any
test-Promotion of appellants was legal and proper as it was in accordance
with the Circular-Impugned seniority list quashed as appellants were senior
to promotees. f
>--
E Seniority-Seniority in a particular Grade has to be determined on the
basis of length of continuous service in that Grade-Appellants were senior
to promotees as per the Circular-No rules placed showing that persons
qualifying written test for promotion would get seniority over appe/lants-
Fresh seniority list placing appellants above promotees to be drawn.

F Appellants were promoted to the post of Fireman Grade C and thereafter
to Grade B. They were further promoted to Grade A as per clause 5.1 of a
Railway Board circular dated 25.6.1985, which did away with the necessity
of holding any written or viva-voce test for such promotions. Respondents
later on held a written test and appointed the persons who qualified, to the
post of Grade A. However, these promotees were shown higher up than the
G appellants in the impugned seniority list, which was upheld by the Tribunal.
Hence this appeal.

Appellants contended that they were legally promoted as clause 5.1 of
the circular dated 25.6.1985 entitled them to promotion without any written
I-I or viva-Foce test; and that promotces selected subsequently could never be
636
N.P. SINHA v. U.0.1. 637

placed above them. A
Respondents contended that the promotccs were selected after qualifying
in a written test in terms of a previous circular dated 17.12.1982 and on
being found more efficient were rightly placed above the appellants.

Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD : I. As per clause 5.1 of the Circular dated 25.6.1985, the
Railway Board had taken a positive decision that when an employee is due
for promotion to only one grade above the grade of the post held by him,
promotion would be only on the basis of scrutiny of service records and
without holding any test. 1639-FI C
2. Fireman Grade A is one grade above the post of Fireman Grade B.
Therefore, in terms of clause 5.1 of he Circular the appellants were entitled
to be promoted to the post of Grade A only on scrutiny of their service
records and it was so done by the respondents as they promoted them to the
post of Fireman Grade A as per the said Circular. The promotion of the D
appellants was legal and proper. 1639-G)

3. Seniority in a particular Grade has to be determined on the basis
-< of length of continuous service in that Grade. Appellants were legally promoted
to Grade A, whereas the promotees were promoted subsequently. It is an
admitted position that appellants were senior to them in all the grades of E
posts of Firemen. Moreover, no rules were placed to show that persons
promoted on the basis of written test would get seniority over the persons
promoted under the said Circular. The impugned seniority list where the
appellants were shown junior to the promotees is contrary to the legal
"'--. position and is accordingly quashed. Respondent shall draw up a fresh F
~ seniority list placing the appellants above the promotees i11 the post of
Fireman Grade A. 1640-A-CI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10912 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.45 of the Central Administrative G
Tribunal at Patna in O.A. No. 502 of 1994.

P.S. Mishra, Vishnu Sharma, Santosh Mishra, U. Mishra, S.B. Upadhyay
·and Ramji Prasad for the Appellants.

K.C. Kaushik for Arvi.nd Kumar Sharma and D.S. Mahra for the H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R.

A Respondents.
...
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ;-- I

PHUKAN, J. In this appeal the two appellants have assailed the order
dated 26.05.1995 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The
B Tribunal rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing the seniority list
issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (Danapur Division) Danapur,
Patna. /

Initially the appellants were appointed as Cleaners in Eastern Railway
(Danapur Division) Danapur and thereafter promoted to post of Fireman
C Grade C. On 11.10.1985 they were promoted to the post of Fireman Grade B.
The Railway Administration decided to restructure the posts of Fireman and
accordingly on 25.06.1985, the Railway Board issued a circular and as a result
of such restructuring the appellants became Fireman Grade A with effect from
1.1.1986. This restructuring was done as a sequel to the report of the Pay
D Revision Commission. After the appellants were so posted as Fireman Grade
A, the respondents held written examinations on different dates. On the basis
of the results ofthe said examinations, 31 persons were promoted from Grade
B to Grade A on 6.8.1985 and thereafter 23 and 31 more persons were so
promoted on 7.2.1986 and on 8.7.1986. The appellants have alleged that as
they were promoted as Fireman Grade A.prior to the promotions of the above
E persons after written examination, the promotees could not have been shown
senior to the appellants in the seniority list as has been done by the impugned
list. It is not disputed that all &long the appellants were senior to the promotees
in all Grades and in fact in the earlier seniority list for Fireman Grade A, the
appellants were shown senior to the above promotees. However, this seniority
list was changed by the impugned seniority list by placing the appellants
F
below the promotees which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal
upheld ~he impugned seniority list. Hence, the present appeal.

The stand of the respondent was that by the circular of the Railway
Board dated 25.06.1985 for restructuring of the above posts, the Board only
G conveyed a general decision but keeping in view fast technological changes,
the respondents in order to find out more efficient persons for promotion
conducted written examinations on the basis of the earlier circular of the
Railway Board dated 17.12.1982 and as the promotees qualified through written
test, they were placed senior to the appellants.

H The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Mishra has
N.P. SINHA 1·.U.O.I. IPIHJK/\N . .I J 639

II···
contended that in view of Clause 5 of the circular of the Railway Board dated A
26.05.1985, as the next higher post for promotion of the appe~lants was
Fireman Grade A, they were entitled to be promoted to that grade only on
scrutiny of 'service records without holding any written and/or viva-voce
test' and therefore they were legally promoted. It has been urged that the
promotees who were promoted subsequently, though selected through written
tests, could not have been placed above the appellants in the seniority list.
B1
In reply Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that as
the promotees were selected after written tests in terms of the circular of the
Railway Board dated 17.12.1982 and being found efficient they were rightly
shown senior to the appellants.

The relevant Clause 5.1 of the circular of the Railway Board dated
c
25.06.1985 is quoted below:

"5.1 - ................. However, for the purpose of implementation of these
order if an individual railway servant becomes due for promotion to
only one grade above the grade of the post held by him is classified D
as a 'Selection Post", the existing selection procedure will stand
modified in such a case to the extent that the selection will be based
only on scrutiny of service records without holding any written and/
or viva-voce test. Under this procedure, the categorisation
'Outstanding' will not exist."
(emphasis ours) E
We have perused the circular and in view of the clear language of
Clause 5.1, the contention put forward on behalf of the respondents is not
sustainable. By the above circular, the Board has taken a positive decision
that an employee due for promotion to only one· grade above the grade of F
the post held by him, promotion would be only on the basis of scrutiny of
service records and without holding any test.

There is no dispute that Fireman Grade A is one grade above the post
of Fireman Grade B, therefore, in terms of the above clause the appellants
were entitled to be promoted to the post of Grade A only on scrutiny of their G
service records and it was so done by the respondents as they promoted the
appellants to the post of Fireman Grade A on ·1.1.1986, the date on which
restructuring was done as per the above circular. We are, therefore, of the
._ view that the promotion of the appellants was legal and proper.

It is well settled that in absence of any rule, seniority in a particular H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R.

A Grade has to be determined on the basis 'of length of continuous service in
that Grade. The ;:ippellants were legally promoted Fireman Grade A whereas
the promotees were promoted subsequently. It is an admitted position that
appellants were senior to the promotees in all the grades of posts of Fireman.
No rules have been placed before us to show that persons promoted on the
basis of written test would get seniority over the persons promoted under
B Clause 5.1. We, therefore, hold that the impugned seniority list where the
appellants were shown junior to the promotees is contrary to the legal position
and accordingly it is,
. quashed .
We find merit in ;he'present appeal and it is allowed with the direction
C to the respondents to draw up a fresh seniority list placing the appellants
above the promotees in the post of Fireman Grade A. The revised seniority
list shall be published within a period of 3 months. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own cost of this
c.ppeal.

D A.Q. Appeal allowed.