http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: G. DEENDAYALAN AMBEDKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals by special arise against the order of the Central Administrative  Tribunal, Bangalore  bench, made  on 10.2.1994 and  1.3.1995 in  OA  No.753/93  and  RA  No.22/94 respectively.      The admitted  position is  that the  appellant and  the respondents are  to be selected by Railway Recruitment Board and were  placed in  a panel  prepared on  June 28,  1985 ad Assistant  Station  Masters.  The  appellant  was  sent  for training on  December 23, 1985 and had completed the same on June 22,  1986. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 were sent on July 20, 1986  and they  completed the   training  on January 19, 1987.  In   preparation  of   the  inter-se  seniority,  the appellant claimed  seniority over  the  respondents  on  the ground that  he had  completed his  training earlier to them and   as per  Rule 303  (1)(a) of  the Railway Establishment Code, the  seniority has  to be  reckoned from  the date  of completion of  the training  and joining the post. Since the appellant was  sent for training of December 23, 1985 to the respondents. The  Tribunal in  the order  under appeal,  has said that  the respondents, though were selected and seniors in the order of ranking, i.e. merits, since the enquiry into the antecedents  was pending,  they could  not be  sent  for training earlier  to the  appellant. Therefor, the appellant cannot scale a march over them in the order of seniority. Learned counsel  for the appellant contended that as per the Rule then  in  vogue,  there  was  no  option  left  to  the authorities to determine the inter se seniority in the light of Rule 303(1)(a) of the code, but on May 31, 1993, the Rule came to  be amended  amplifying what  latent with  potential mischief for  the arbitrary  exercise of power in picking up and sending  the  candidates  batch-wise  for  training  and giving them  accelerated seniority  over the  candidates who were put  blow in  the order  of select  list by the Railway Recruitment Board  or any  of the  competent authority  that rule cannot  be applied to the case of the appellant and the respondents as  the rule  in vogue  in 1985  alone has to be considered. though  prima  facial  we  found  force  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

contention of  the learned counsel for the appellant, but on deeper consideration  of the  legality and  justice, we find that there  is no  force in  the contention.  It is  not  in dispute that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were selected in the same batch and rank; in the order of merit they were seniors to the  appellant. Under there circumstances, since they had not been  sent for training, necessarily their ranking given in the  list of candidates selected in the order of merit by the recruitment  board cannot  be given  a  go-by  and  they cannot be  given accelerated  seniority to the appellant and the like by picking and choosing the persons as per the whim of the  authorities empowered  to send them for training. It is settled  legal position  that  the  order  of  merit  and ranking given  by the Recruitment Board should be maintained when more  than one  persons are selected, the same inter se seniority should  be maintained for future promotions unless Rules prescribe  passing of departmental test as a condition for confirmation  but was  not passed  as  on  the  date  of determining   of    inter   se    seniority.   Under   these circumstances, the  Tribunal was  justified and right in not directing the  respondent give  seniority to  the  appellant over the  respondents. Therefore,  the order of the Tribunal does not warrant interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.