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

PETITIONER: KUTTIYAPPAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This SLP  has been  filed  against  the  order  of  the Central  Administrative   Tribunal,  Madras  Bench  made  on January 30,  1996 in OA No.1470/93. The admitted position is that the petitioner along with others came to be selected by internal  selection   for   promotion   under   25%   quota. Undoubtedly, the  process of  selection was  started in 1988 but the  incumbents actually joined the promotional posts in October 1990.  Though the  process of  selection for  direct recruits under  25% quota  reserved for  the candidates from upon market was started in 1989, they came to join the posts after completion  of the  selection process  earlier to  the petitioner &  others in August 1990. The petitioners claimed seniority over  them. The Tribunal has rejected their claim. Thus, this SLP.      It is  contended for the petitioners, relying upon Rule 302 read  with Rule  306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Mahual that  since the  process of  selection had  been made earlier to  the direct  recruits, the petitioner is entitled to seniority  over  the  direct  recruits  since  they  were selected earlier  to the  respondents and,  therefore,  they should be  made seniors  to the  direct recruits. We find no force in the contention. Rule 302 reads as under:      "302.    Seniority    in    initial      recruitment   Grades    -    Unless      specifically stated  otherwise, the      seniority among the incumbents of a      post in  a grade is governed by the      date of  appointment to  the grade.      The grant  of pay  higher than  the      initial pay  should not, as a rule,      confer   on   a   Railway   servant      seniority  above   those  who   are      already appointed  against  regular      posts.  In   categories   of   post      partially filled  by promotion, the

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

    criterion  for   determination   of      seniority should  be  the  date  of      regular promotion after due process      in the  case of  promotees and  the      date of  joining the  working  post      after due  process in  the case  of      direct recruits  among  themselves.      When the  dates  of  entry  into  a      grade of  promoted railway servants      and direct  recruits are  the  same      they should  be  put  in  alternate      positions,  the   promotees   being      senior  to   the  direct  recruits,      maintaining  interse  seniority  of      each group"      Note- In  case the  training period      of a direct recruit is curtailed in      the exigencies of service, the date      of joining the working post in case      of such  a direct  recruit shall be      the date  we  would  have  normally      come  to   a  working   post  after      completion of the prescribed period      of training.      (No.E(NG) 1-78-SR-6-42  dt.7.4.1982      ACS 132) Similarly, Rule 306 reads as under:      "306.   Candidates   selected   for      appointment at an earlier selection      shall be  senior to  those selected      later irrespective  of the dates of      posting, except in the case covered      by para 305."      A reading  of these  Rules would  clearly indicate that the  process  of  selection  bears  no  relevance.  What  is material in  determination of the inter se seniority between regularly promoted  in-service candidates and those selected by direct  recruitment during  the process  of selection  is that in  the case  of the  former the  seniority starts from date on  which they joined the working post after completion of the  process while in case of direct recruits their inter se seniority  would start from the date their entry into the grade. Therefore,  as regards  the direct recruits, the date of first  entry and joining the post is the criteria, in the case of  the promotees  it would  be the  date on which they start working  in the  post after completion of the process. It is  not in dispute that training is one of the conditions for  completion  of  the  process.  Until  the  training  is completed,  they   cannot  work  on  regular  basis  in  the promotional post.      As regards  Rule 306, it regulates in an area where the selected candidates were appointed earlier to the candidates who  subsequently  came  to  be  selected  and  the  earlier candidates  become   seniors  to   the  subsequent  selected irrespective of  the  date  of  posting.  That  criteria  is inapplicable in  determining the  inter se seniority between the  promoters   and  the  direct  recruits.  The  Tribunal, therefore, was  right in  rejecting the  claim. It does not, therefore, warrant interference.      The SLP is accordingly dismissed.