Holding

The unamended paragraph 303(a) of the Railway Establishment Manual, as it stood on the date of selection, governs inter‑se seniority; the later amendment is inapplicable.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to paragraph 303(a) of the Railway Establishment Manual, introduced after July 1989, applies to the inter‑se seniority of candidates selected before the amendment.
Whether inter‑se seniority of railway recruits who undergo training should be determined by the merit obtained in the post‑training examination or by the order of batch training.

Subjects

service lawseniority determinationrailway recruitmentadministrative lawrule amendmentinter se seniorityCentral Administrative Tribunaltraining batch

Judgment

PREM KUMAR VERMA AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 15, 1998

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Railway Establishment Manual: Para 303 (a) [as it stood before 1990
amendment! C
Service Rules-Amendment of-Pre-amended and post-amended rules-
Application-Seniority-1nter se-Determination of-Selection of Depot
Storekeepers was completed before amendment of rule-Held : Unamended
rule, as it stood on the date of selection, would govern the case of inter se
seniority-Administrative Law. D

The Railway Recruitment Board selected candidates for the post of
Depot Storekeeper. These selected candidates were sent for training in four
different batches and after completion of training they started discharging
their duties. The Railway authorities drew up the seniority list of the said E
Deputy Storekeepers in accordance with paragraph 303(a) of the Railway
Establishment Manual as it stood prior to its amendment on the basis of the
merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period. The
appellants having obtained higher marks at the examination were shown as
senior to the respondents nos. 5 to 9. However, paragraph 303(a) of the
Manual was later on amended which laid down that candidates sent for F
training in a later batch would rank junior to those who were sent for
training in an earlier batch.

Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 filed an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid seniority list on the ground G
that they were sent for training in the first batch itself and completed the
training much earlier than the appellants and, therefore, they were entitled
- "" to be declared senior to the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the application.
Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the unamended H
763
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 2 S.C.R.

A paragraph 303(a) of the Manual, as it stood on the date of selection, would
govern the inter se seniority and not the amended provisions and, therefore,
the appellants were rightly shown as senior to respondents nos. 5 to 9.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

B HELD : 1. The amendment to paragraph 303(a) of the Railway
Establishment Manual will have no application and it is the unamended
paragraph 303(a) of the Manual, as it stood on the date of selection, which
would govern the case of inter se seniority. According to paragraph 303
where candidates are required to undergo some training after being selected
C through Railway Service Commission on any other Recruiting Authority
their seniority is determined on the basis of their respective merit at the
examination held at the end of the training period and where candidates do
not have to undergo any training then the seniority is determined on the
basis of the merit assigned by the Commission or other Recruiting Authority.
D In the present case the candidates had to undergo training in batches. Their
seniority had rightly been determined by the Railway Authority on the basis
of their respective merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the
training period. The Tribunal committed error by altering the said seniority
on the basis of a Rule, which was not in existence on the date the vacancy
arose and on the date when the selection was completed. [767-E-H; 768-A)
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2250 of
1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.95 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh, in O.A. No. 470/PB of 1994.
F
Ms. Shyamla Pappu, M.R. Krishnamurti, Pramod Sharma and Rajesh for
the Appellants. •
S. Wasim A. Quadri, Harinder Mohan Singh and Arvind Kumar Sharma
G for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 20th October, 1995 in O.A.
H No. 470 of 1994. The question for consideration is whether the inter se
P.K. VERMA v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK, J.] 765
seniority of the appellants had been rightly determined by the Railway A
Authorities as per para 303 (a) of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Manual') and was illegally interfered with by the Tribunal
on the basis of a provision which came into existence subsequently.

Admittedly, vacancy arose in the post of Depot Store Keepe1 Grade lJI B
in Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, in July 1989, and advertisement inviting
applications for the said posts had been issued by the Competent Authority.
The Railway Recruitment Board Jammu Tawi selected 29 candidates on 11.7.89.
Under the Rules the candidates are required to undergo training. The 29
candidates thus selected were sent for training in four different batches and
after completion of their training started discharging their duties as Depot C
Store Keeper. The Railway Authorities drew up the seniority list of t~e said
20 Depot Store Keepers in accordance with Para 303 (a) of the Manual, as it
stood prior to its amendment on the basis of the merit obtained at the
examination held at the end of the training period. Respondents nos. 5 to 9
filed a Representation on 3.8.92 challenging the seniority list. That D
Representation having been rejected by the Government they approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal contending inter alia that since they were
sent for training in the first batch itself and completed the training much
earlier than other batch of personnel they are entitled to be declared senior
to others. The appellants contested before the Tribunal both on the ground E
that the application is grossly barred by time and also on the ground that the
seniority inter se has been rightly determined in accordance with Para 303 (a)
of the Manual and consequently the respective merit after the end of the
training is the determining factor and earlier in point of tin).e for getting the
training is immaterial. The Tribunal, however, came to hold that respondents
5 to 9 having successfully completed the training before the present appellants F
and other respondents, said 5 to 9 who were applicants before the Tribunal
would rank senior.

Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
contended that when recruitment to a cadre under the Railways is made G
through the Railway service Commission then the seniority of such recruits
has to be determined in accordance with para 303. She further contended that
vacancy having arisen in July 1989 process of selection for the same having
started and completed on 11. 7.89 the relevant provision, as it stood then
would govern the inter se seniority and not the amended provision. Under
the preamended provision it is the order of merit obtained at the examination H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) 2 S.C.R.

A held at the end of the training period which determines the inter se seniority
and the appellants having obtained higher merit at the examination held at the
end of the training has rightly been shown senior in the Gradation List and
the Tribunal erroneously interfered with the same. Mrs. Shyamla Pappu,
learned senior counsel further submitted that the Proviso to Para 303 (a) of
the Manual which has been quoted and considered by the Tribunal was not
B there on the Statute Book either when the vacancy arose or at the time when
the selection was completed and, therefore, the said proviso cannot be
attracted. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has committed error by
deciding the seniority on the basis as to which batch joined the training
course earlier. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to
C 9 on the other hand contended, that at the relevant point of time the provision
of para 303 (a) stood, as indicated in paragraph 8 of the order of the Tribunal
and in that view of the matter the Tribunal rightly decided the criteria for
determination of seniority and the said order, therefore, does not require any
interference. The Railway Authorities though entered appearance but did not
file any counter affidavit.
D
In view of the rival submissions at the Bar the first question that would
arise for consideration is which rule would govern the inter se seniority? It
is undisputed that vacancies arose prior to July 1989 and advertisement for
the said post had been issued earlier to July 1989 and finally the Railway
E Recruitment Board concluded its selection process and selected 29 candidates
on 11.7.1989. Therefore, the relevant rules, as existed then would govern the
inter se seniority. The next question that arises for consideration is which is
the relevant Rule that was in force in July 1989? From the materials produced
before us it appears that Para 303 of the Manual, as it stood in July 1989 is
F to the following effect :-

"303. The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Service
Commission or by any other recruiting authority should be determined
as under :-

G (a) Candidates who are sent for initial training to training schools
will rank in seniority in the relevant grade in the order of merit
obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period
before being posted again working posts.

H (b) Candidates who do not have to undergo any training the seniority
.
P.K. VERMA v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK. J.] 767
should be determined on the basis of the m·erit order assigned A
by the Railway Service Commission or other recruiting authority."

Later on s0metimes in the year 1990, 303 (a) was amended by inserting
the following expression:-

"Those who joined the subsequent course for any reasons whatsoever B
and those who passed the examination in the subsequent chance will
rank junior to those ~ho had passed the examination in earlier courses."

The aforesaid Rule stood further amended in 1993 which reads thus :-

"In case however persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent C
for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not
because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter se seniority
will be regulated batch-wise provided persons higher up in the panel
ofRRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (As per seniority)
due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed alongwith the D
candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the
purpose of regularing the inter se seniority provided such persons
pass the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt."

In view of our conclusion that the posts fell vacant prior to July 1989
and the process of selection was completed and the Recruitment Board E
selected the candidates on 11. 7 .1989 the amendment that was introduced on
5.5.90 and the further amendment of 1993 will have no application and it is
the unamended Rule 303(a) as it stood on I Ith July 1989 would govern the
case of inter se seniority. The analysis of the provisions of para 303 indicates
that where candidates are required to undergo some training after being F
selected through Railway Service Commission or any other Recruiting
Authority their seniority is detennined on the basis of their respective merit
at the examination held at the end of the training period and where candidates
do not have to undergo any training then the seniority is determined on the
basis of the merit assigned by the Railway Service Commission or other
Recruiting Authority. In the present case the candidates had to undergo G
training and infact they had undergone training in batches, as already stated.
- -.;. Jn that view of the matter their seniority had rightly been determined by the
Railway Authority on the basis of their respective merit obtained at the
examination held at the end of the training period. The Tribunal committed
error by altering the said seniority on the basis of a Rule which was not in H
768 . \ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A existence on the date the vacancy arose and on the date when the selection
was completed.

In the aforesaid premises, we -set .aside the impugned order of the . -./.
Trib_unal and dismiss _the 0.A. filed by respondents ilOS. 5 to. 9. The seniority
list as issued by the Railway Authorities on 24.9.1993 is restored.
B .~ ' .
The a.ep.ea_I is allowed. But in the circumstances there will be no order
as to costs. 1__ _

V.S.S. Appeal allowed.

- ---.·- -

.•