Kailash Chand @APPELLANT@Hash Central Administrative Tribunal

Mohammad Rafiq, J

Since both these writ petitions arise out of one and same order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

(for short ‘the Tribunal’), therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

Both the writ petitions, one by 10 petitioners (Writ Petition No. 7840/2014) and another by Union of India (Writ Petition No. 11407/2014) have been

filed challenging order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal whereby Original Application No. 195/2010 filed by private respondent-applicant

Jagdish Prasad Jatav has been disposed of with certain directions.Â

Facts of the case in brief are that the Railways vide notification dated 18.03.2008 notified 11 vancancies for promotion under 331/3% Ranker’s

quota from Group ‘D’ post to Group ‘C’ post and selection was conducted. Respondent namely Jagdish Prasad Jatav as also

petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7840/2014 appeared in the selection test wherein Jagdish Prasad Jatav failed but the petitioners were selected and their

names found place in the panel dated 01.02.2010. Jagdish Prasad Jatav challenged panel dated 01.02.2010 by filing original application before the

Tribunal contending that notification dated 18.03.2008 was for nonmatriculate candidates only whereas the respondents-Railways have allowed

matriculate employees and others, who were not having three years requisite experience to appear in the selection test. The respondent-Railways

as also the petitioners in Writ Petition 7840/2014 filed their reply contending that the qualification of non-matriculate is only a minimum qualification

and not the earmarked eligibility. The rules and provisions of the IREM do not provide that only non-matriculate employees will be promoted against

33-1/3% Ranker’s quota. As per the notification, the eligibility condition was that an employee has to be literate and having knowledge of Hindi

and English along with practical experience. However, this condition in no way impose any bar on those employees, who had higher education to

appear in the selection test and therefore it was wrong to say that notification was meant only for non-matriculate employees. The Tribunal after

hearing the parties vide it’s order dated 12.05.2004 allowed the Original Application and set aside panel dated 01.02.2010 and directed the

Railways to hold a fresh selection on the basis of revised eligibility prepared under 33-1/3% meant for nonmatriculate employees. Hence, these writ

petitions.

Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7840/2014 as also Respondents No. 2 to 12 in

Writ Petition No. 11407/2014 argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter that the selection against 33-1/3% Ranker’s

quota was a general selection based on merit as the applications from Group ‘D’ employees from different seniority units were invited and

panel was prepared as per the merit. SC/ST employees can be placed against the general vacancy if they secure more marks than an employee of

the general category. Original Application was filed by the applicant Jagdish Prasad Jatav after he was declared unsuccessful and therefore,

objections against the selection filed by him after appearing in the selection process could not be considered. It is argued that the Tribunal has

quashed the panel only on the ground that the posts are meant under 33-1/3% Ranker’s quota for non-matriculate employees. According to the

notification and as per the rules, these posts are not for nonmatriculate employees only. In fact, the notification dated 18.03.2008 was for all the

Group ‘D’ employees, who were literate and having knowledge of Hindi and English with practical experience. All such employees were

eligible for appearing in the selection against Ranker’s Quota of 33-1/3%. The respondentRailways issued eligibility list vide letter dated

05.08.2008 providing that if any employee has any objection to the same, he may submit his representation within 15 days. The applicant Jagdish

Prasad Jatav without making any objection or representation within the aforesaid period appeared in the selection process and therefore, he could not

have raised any grievance before the Tribunal.Â

Mr. P. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitionersRailways in Writ Petition No. 11407/2014 as also for respondents in Writ Petition No. 7840/2014

argued that the applicant Jagdish Prasad Jatav submitted his representation dated 08.03.2010 after declaration of result and after being declared

unsuccessful in the selection process and before appearing in selection process, no objections were submitted by him. He did not even wait for reply

of the representation and filed Original Application before the Tribunal, which was premature and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is

argued that the instructions issued by the Railway Board and mentioned in IREM have statutory force under Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. Under 33-1/3% quota, there must be three years regular service in Group ‘D’ cadre to become eligible for appearing in selection

process and the condition of three years has been relaxed in the case of SC/ST candidates. There is no restriction in respect to the higher

qualification. In quota of 16-2/3%, there is a minimum qualification of matriculation but the learned Tribunal has on its own assumed that the quota

of 33-1/3% is only for nonmatriculate and rest 16-2/3% quota is for matriculation and above. Learned counsel argued that Jagdish Prasad Jatav, the

original applicant has taken voluntary retirement under the scheme of railways and got his son Sanjay Singh appointed on compassionate ground on the

post of PP in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 plus grade pay of Rs. 1800 on provisional basis. In this connection, learned counsel has produced

copy of order dated 30.04.2014 issued by DRM (Personnel), Ajmer. It is submitted that Jagdish Prasad Jatav will not get any benefit of the order

passed by the Tribunal. It is therefore prayed that order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.Â

Mr. C.B. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-applicant Jagdish Prasad Jatav argued that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in interpreting

Instruction No. 189 of IREM, which inter alia provides that railway servants in Group ‘D’ categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion

exists, 331/3% of the posts in the lowest grade of Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors, Trains Clerks, Office Clerks, Stores Clerks, etc. should be

earmarked for promotion subject to written test to assess their educational attainments of candidates. However, the railway servants in Group

‘D’ who are matriculate have been separately made eligible against the quota of 16-2/3% provided they had put in two years continuous

service. This requirement of experience does not apply to SC/ST candidates. Learned counsel therefore submitted that it is clear that 50%

promotion quota has been divided by the railway in two categories, firstly where no formal academic qualification has been laid down except eligible

candidates should be able to read and write and second for those who have qualification of matriculation and secondly, for matriculate and above

candidates. Therefore quota of 33-2/3% has been specifically earmarked for non-matriculate candidates. Learned counsel referred to Annexure

A/2 appended to the Original Application and submitted that requirement for the candidates appearing against 33-2/3% rankers of quota is that they

should be having minimum three years experience of regular service. It is precisely because for non-matriculate lesser experience has been

required. Learned counsel argued that the railways have promoted seven candidates, i.e. Respondents No. 3, 5 and 9 to 13 before the Tribunal,

even without their completing requisite experience of three years.Â

We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record.

The relevant provision, i.e. R.B.E. No. 165/2003, which has been referred to by the parties and on which outcome of the writ petition would depend is

extract below:

“R.B.E. No. 165/2003

Subject: Procedure for holding selections for promotions from Group ‘D’ to Group ‘C’ posts.

[No. E(NG)I-2003/CFP/2, dated 22.9.2003.] xxxxxxxxxx

2.        In terms of instructions contained in para 189 of IREM, Vol. I, 1989, 33-1/3% quota of posts in the lowest grade of

Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collectors, Trains Clerks, Office Clerks and other categories of Clerks like Stores Clerks, etc. are to be earmarked for

promotion of Railway servants in Group ‘D’ categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists; the Group ‘C’ categories being

suitably linked with specified Group ‘D’ categories on the basis of broad affinity of work. Further, in terms of Board’s letter No.

E(NG)I/96/CFP/2, dated 10.10.2000 (Bahri’s 176/2002, p.184), 16-2/3% of the posts in these categories are also filled by promotion of Matriculate

Group ‘D’ employees with a minimum of two years service in the concerned seniority unit entirely on merit on the basis of a competitive

examination. However, in the case of Accounts Department, the quota for promotion of Group ‘D’ staff to Group ‘C’ post of Accounts

Clerks continues to be 25% of the posts.

3.        xxxxxxxxxxxxxâ€​

On reading of afore-quoted instructions of the Railways, while it is clear that 16-2/3% of the posts out of 50% of posts meant for promotion have been

earmarked for matriculate Group ‘D’ employees with minimum two years of service in the seniority unit entirely on merit on the basis of a

competitive examination, but there is no such restriction in so far as the remaining 33-1/3% quota is concerned, against which not only non-

matriculates can compete, and those having qualification of matriculation or above can also compete. In our considered opinion, the view taken by

the Tribunal by interpreting Instruction 189 of IREM, Vol. I, that this quota is meant for promotion of only those Group ‘D’ employees, who do

not have matriculation qualification and have no avenue of promotion cannot be said to be legally justified. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal

cannot be justified in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

As regards contention of private respondent-applicant, Jagdish Prasad Jatav that the railways have promoted seven candidates, i.e. Respondents No.

3, 5 and 9 to 13 before the Tribunal, even without their completing requisite experience of three years, the same was rebutted by the Railways before

the

Tribunal in para 4.4 of the reply to Original Application by stating that the aforesaid candidates were belonging to SC/ST categories and there was no

requirement of experience of three years service in their case. In any case, no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect of the

matter and therefore, the stand of the Railways that aforesaid candidates were belonging to SC/ST categories has to be taken as correct.Â

In view of above, both the writ petitions deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the

Tribunal in O.A. No. 195/2010 is set aside.

Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of connected writ petition.Â