http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: S.K. CHANDAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/10/1976

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2374            1977 SCR  (1) 785  1976 SCC  (4) 629

ACT:             Indian Railway Establihment Code--Para  157--Whether the         paragraph  empowers the Railway Board to make rules for  the         gazetted Railway servants--Construction of para 157.             (ii) promotions--Right to  promotion--Whether  promotion         of  class  III employees to class II is governed by "Advance         Correction   Slip   No.  70" introducing  w.e.f.  March  11,         1973, new rules 324 to 328 and substituting at new rule  301         in Chapter III of the Indian Railway Establishment  Mannual-         Scope  and  applicability of Rules 301 and 328(2),  (4)  and         (5).             (iii)  Indian  Railway,  Establishment   Manual--Whether         Rule  328(2) providing for the invalidity of promotions made         in the Diesel Locomotive Works from August 1, 1961 to  March         11, 1973 casts an obligation on the Railway Board to  recall         all promotions and to form a fresh panel--Meaning of "promo-         tion made in the Diesel Locomotive Works in Rule 328.(2) and         promotion to the higher grades in Rule 328(4)."

HEADNOTE:              Chapter 11 of the Indian Railway Establishment  Manual         deals  with  "Rules governing the provision  of  subordinate         staff  and Section A thereof deals with "promotion to  class         II  posts."   The Railway Board  by  virtue of   its   power         vested by para 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code,         introduced  w.e.f.  March 11, 1973, an  "Advance  Correction         Slip No. 70" substituting a new rule 301 and introducing new         rules 324 to 328. Chapter III deals with the rules  regulat-         ing  seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants and the  new         rule 328(2) provided that selections and promotions made  in         the Diesel Locomotive Works from August 1, 1961 to March 11,         1973 shall not be valid.             The appellant, a member of the class III service serving         with  the Western Railway as a chargeman was transferred  to         the  Diesel  Locomotive  Works in 1963 and  was  given  .the         benefits of deemed dates of transfer as provided for in Rule         326(2).   The  appellant  filed a writ   petition   in   the         Allahabad High Court praying for a writ of mandamus ,on  the         strength  of the "Advance Correction Slip  No.  70"  praying         for  a  direction to the respondent to  hold  selections  to         class 1I service.  The application was rejected holding that         the rules contained in Slip No. 70 did not govern the promo-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       tion of class III employees to class         Dismissing the appeal by’ special leave the court,             HELD:  ’Though the Railway Board has the power  to  make         rules  governing  both  gazetted  and  non-gazetted  Railway         servants, the rules expressed to be made under paragraph 157         cannot, in the. very nature of .things, be intended to apply         to  gazetted  Railway servants  or to govern  the  promotion         of-non-gazetted Railway servants to gazetted posts.  If  the         Railway  Board has the power to make rules in regard to both         gazetted  and non-gazetted Railway servants, the  significa-         tion of a limited source  of  power  cannot whitle down  the         effective exercise of that power if the rules can reasonably         be  construed  to cover both the gazetted  and  non-gazetted         categories. [787 H, 788 A--B]             (2)  None of the rules introduced by Slip No. 70  govern         the  promotion of a class III employee to a class  II  post.         The   amendments  were  made  to. Chapter III  dealing  with         rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants.         It  is in regard to that class of Railway servants that  the         Railway         786         Board  made  new provisions.  The  provisions  contained  in         Chapter  III including provisions newly introduced  by  Slip         No.  70, are very clearly designed to govern  the  seniority         and  promotions  of non-gazetted servants  within  the  non-         gazetted  categories of posts.  Chapter 11 Section A of  the         Manual  in terms prescribes rules governing the promotion of         subordinate  staff  to class II post.  In view of  the  fact         that  the Railway Board has framed seven specific  rules  in         Chapter II for the promotion of class III staff to class  ii         post,  the contention that the rules introduced by Slip  No.         70  would also govern the same subject-mater cannot  be  ac-         cepted.  In the instant case, since the appellant is working         as a non-gazetted employee in class III, his promotion 10  a         gazetted  post in class 1I would be governed by Chapter  II,         Section  A and not by Chapter III of the Railway  Establish-         ment Manual. [788 F---H, 789 A]             (3)   The words "promotions made in the Diesel   Locomo-         tive   Works" which occur in Rule 328(2)  must be  construed         as  meaning ’promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive  Works         from  one category of non-gazetted post to another  category         of  non-gazetted post."  The words "promotion to the  higher         grades"  occurring in para 328(4) mean promotion to a  class         II post.  The words promotion to the higher grades must,  in         the  context mean promotion to any of the higher  grades  in         the non-gazetted category.  The contention that Rule  328(1)         casts  an  obligation  on the Railway Board  to  recall  all         promotions made from amongst class III servants to class  II         posts  from August 1, 1961 to March 11. 1973  is  misplaced.         [789 B--C]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 621 of 1976.             Appeal  by  Special Leave from the  Judgment  and  Order         dated  12.1.1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil  Misc.         Writ Petition No. 7183 of 1975,         Appellant in person.             V.P.  Raman,  Addl. Sol. Genl. and Girish  Chandra,  for         respondent No. 1.             Yogeshwar  Prasad, Lalji Sinha and Miss Rani Arora,  for         respondent No. 5.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             CHANDRACHUD,  J.--Respondent  1,  the  Union  of  India,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

       established  the Locomotive Component Works at  Varanasi  in         1956  for  manufacturing component  .parts  of  locomotives.         That  manufactory merged in 1961 with the Diesel  Locomotive         Works,   The appellant, S.K. Chandan, who was  serving  with         the Westeren Railway as a Chargeman was transferred in  1963         to  the Diesel Locomotive Works in the grade of Rs.  375-475         which  he  was  holding at the time of his  transfer   as  a         member of the Class III service.   The question which arises         in  this  appeal concerns the claim of the appellant  to  be         promoted to Class II service.             In 1975 the appellant filed the present writ petition in         the Allahabad High Court asking for the writs of  Certiorari         and  Mandamus.  We arc now concerned with the grant  of  the         latter writ only by which the appellant prayed, inter  alia,         that respondent 1 be directed to hold selections to Class II         service in accordance with the "Advance Correction Slip 70."         This particular prayer was rejected by the High Court by         787         its  judgment dated January 12, 1976 on the view that  rules         contained  in Slip 70 did not govern the promotion of  Class         III  employees   to Class II.   Aggrieved by  the  aforesaid         decision  the  appellant  has filed this appeal  by  special         leave of this Court.   The leave is restricted to the  ques-         tion whether the promotion of Class III employees  to  Class         II is governed by Slip 70.             Paragraph  105 of the Indian Railway Establishment  Code         (Vol. I) divides railway services into two categories gazet-         ted  and  non-gazetted.  Services in Classes 1  and  II  are         gazetted  whereas those in Classes 111 and IV and the  Serv-         ices  of the Workshop Staff are designated  as  nongazetted.         Paragraph 157 of the Code confers on the Railway Board "full         powers to make rules of general application to  non-gazetted         railway servants under their control."   Acting in pursuance         of this power, the Railway Board has framed rules which  are         to  be found in the "Indian Railway  Establishment  Manual."         Chapter  i of those rules deals with questions  relating  to         recruitment,   training,  confirmation   and   reemployment.         Chapter II which is headed "Rules governing the promotion of         subordinate  staff’ consists of two sections, ’A’  and  ’B’.         Section  ’A’ deals with "Promotion to Class II posts"  while         section  ’B’  contains  "Rules governing  the  promotion  of         subordinate staff. Chapter’ III is headed "Rules  regulating         seniority of non-gazetted railway  servants."             Originally,  Chapter  III contained rules  301  to  323.         The  Advance  Correction  Slip No. 70, also  issued  by  the         Railway Board in exercise of its powers under Paragraph  157         of  the Railway Establishment Code, substituted a  new  rule         301  for the existing rule and it introduced five new  rules         in Chapter III, namely rules 324 to 328.   The contention of         the  appellant which requires examination in this appeal  is         that   his  promotion to Class II is governed by  the  rules         introduced by Slip No. 70 which came into force on March 11,         1973.             The  appellant, who argued his own case before  us  with         quite industry and plausibility, did not dispute that  rules         324, 323,  327 328(1) and 328(3) have no application to this         case.   Rule 326(2) which prescribes deemed dates of  trans-         fers would apply but has been concededly compiled with,  the         appellant  having no grievance in regard to the fixation  of         the  deemed date of his transfer to  the  Diesel  Locomotive         Works.   Keeping these provisions apart, the question  boils         down  to the applicability of rules 301 and 328(2), (4)  and         (5).             The  appellant’s argument that the rules  introduced  by         Advance Correction Slip 70 govern his right to promotion  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

       Class II is plainly misconceived.   In the first place,  the         rules  introduced  by Slip No. 70 were made by  the  Railway         Board  in exercise of its powers under Paragraph 157 of  the         Railway Establishment Code which empowers  it to make  rules         of  general application to "Non-gazetted  railway  servants"         under  its control.  Though the Railway Board has the  power         to  make  rules  governing both  gazetted  and  non-gazetted         railway  servants,  the  rules expressed to  be  made  under         Paragraph 157 cannot in the very         788         nature  Of things be intended to apply to  gazetted  railway         servants or to govern the promotion of non-gazetted  railway         servants  to  gazetted posts.   But this is  a  small  point         because if the Railway Board has the power to make rules  in         regard  to both gazetted and non-gazetted railway  servants,         the signification of a limited source of power cannot  whit-         tle down the effective exercise of that power, if the  rules         can  reasonably be construed to cover both the gazetted  and         non-gazetted categories.             The  true  reason  Why it is impossible  to  accept  the         appellant’s  contention  that his promotion to Class  II  is         governed  by  the rules introduced by Slip No.  70  is  that         Chapter II, section A,  of the  Indian Railway Establishment         Manual in terms prescribes rules governing the promotion  of         subordinate staff to Class II posts.   The heading of  Chap-         ter  II is: "Rules governing the promotion  of   subordinate         staff"  and section A of that Chapter bears (he  Sub-heading         "Promotion  to Class II posts." Rule 201 which is the  first         of the Rules occurring in section A of Chapter II, provides                        "The  following  provisions  shall  apply  in                  respect  of  promotion of  non-gazetted  class  III                  staff employed on Indian Railways or other  Railway                  administrations to class  II posts other than those                  in Railway Protection Force organization."             Rule 202’prescribes conditions of eligibility, rule  203         deals  with the size of panels of selection, rule  204  with         the constitution of the ’selection boards, rule 205 with the         procedure  to ’be adopted by selection boards and rules  206         and  207 with the currency and formation of panels.    These         seven rules constitute a Code of rules governing the  promo-         tion of the non-gazetted Class III staff to Class II  posts.         other than those in the Railway Protection Force.   In  view         of the fact that the Railway Board has framed these specific         rules  for  the  promotion of Class III staff  to  Class  II         posts,  it  seems to us difficult to accept that  the  rules         introduced by Slip No. 70 would also govern the same subject         matter.             The Advance Correction Slip No. 70 introduced amendments         to Chapter III and not to Chapter II of the Manual.  Chapter         III  deals with rules regulating seniority  of  non-gazetted         railway servants and it is in regard to that class of  rail-         way  servants .that the Railway Board made  new,  provisions         through  Slip No. 70.   The provisions contained in  Chapter         III,  including the provisions newly introduced by Slip  No.         70,  are very clearly designed to govern the  seniority  and         promotion  of non-gazetted servants within the  non-gazetted         categories  of posts. The non-gazetted railway service  con-         sists  of  Class III and IV employees and  of  the  Workshop         staff.    Within  each of these three classes-there  may  be         different  grades  of  railway  servants and  the  rules  in         Chapter  III are intended to govern the inter  se  seniority         and the promotion of a railway employee from one category of         non-gazetted  post  to another category  of  a  non-gazetted         post.  The         789

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       rules in Chapter HI cannot therefore govern the promotion of         non.gazetted railway servants to gazetted posts.  Since  the         appellant  is  working as a non-gazetted employee  in  Class         III, his promotion to  a gazetted post in Class II would  be         governed by Chapter II, section A, and not by Chapter III of         the Railway Establishment Manual.             Rule  301  of  Chapter III, as introduced  by  Slip  70,         provides  terms that the rules contained in  the  particular         Chapter lay down general principles that may be followed for         determining  the seniority of non-gazetted railway  servants         and  that rules 324 to 328  of that Chapter shall apply  for         the  purpose of determining the seniority and  promotion  of         non-gazetted  employees of the Diesel Locomotive Works.  The         appellant relied very strongly on rule 328(2) which provides         that selections and promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive         Works  from 1-8-1961 to the date on which Slip No.  70  came         into  force, namely March 11, 1973, shall not be valid.   He         urges that this provision casts an obligation on the Railway         Board  to recall all promotions made from amongst Class  III         servants to Class H posts from August 1 1961 to March , 1973         and  that  therefore  those  who  are  already  promoted  to         gazetted  posts ought to be demoted and a fresh  panel  must         be  formed  for  selection to Class II  posts  from  amongst         employees  working  in Class III posts.   The  infirmity  of         this  argument  is  that Chapter III applies  only  to  non-         gazetted  servants  and  to their  inter  se  promotion  and         therefore  the words "promotions made in the Diesel  Locomo-         tive Works" which occur in rule 328(2) must be construed  as         meaning" promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive Works from         one  category  of non-gazetted post to another  category  of         non-gazetted post".  The same answer would effectively  meet         the contention of the appellant that the words "promotion to         the higher grades" occurring in paragraph 328(4) mean promo-         tion to a Class II post.  The words "promotion to the higher         grades"  must  in the context mean promotion to any  of  the         higher grades in the non-gazetted category. Rule 123(’3)  of         Chapter I, Section B, Railway Establishment Manual,  defines         "grades" as sub-divisions of a class, each bearing a differ-         ent scale of pay.             If the grievance of the appellant who holds a non-gazet-         ted  post in Class III, at all is or can be that he has  not         been  promoted  to Class II, he must show that  the  railway         administration  has  violated some  provision  contained  in         Chapter II, section A, of the Railway  Establishment Manual.         It  is  useless  and irrelevant for him to  show  that   the         provisions of Chapter III introduced by  Advance  Correction         Slip  No. 70 have not been complied with by the  administra-         tion.  None of the rules introduced by that slip governs the         promotion of a Class III employee to a Class II post.             The  High  Court was accordingly right  in  refusing  to         issue  a writ of mandamus directing the railway  administra-         tion to apply the provisions of Chapter III in the matter of         the appellant’s promotion to a Class II post.             The  appellant has filed a civil miscellaneous  petition         (7990 of 1976) complaining of adverse entries in his Service         record and of the         790         fact that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion.         These very grievances were made by him in the High Court but         he  lost on those points.  While granting special  leave  to         appeal,  this  Court refused to consider the correctness  of         the  High   Court’s  findings on those  issues.   The  leave         being restricted to the question as regards the  application         of  rules introduced by Advance Correction Slip No. 70.  the         appellant cannot be permitted to raise questions which  must

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

       be  taken as finally decided under the judgment of the  High         Court.             For these reasons the appeal fails but there will be  no         order as to costs.         S.R.                                                  Appeal         dismissed.                                         1         ?         791