Supreme Court of India

G. DEENDAYALAN AMBEDKARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1413
Decided: 29 November 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

Seniority is determined by the order of merit in the selection list, not by the date of completion of training.

Summary

The appellant, selected as an Assistant Station Master, argued that his seniority over two respondents should be based on his earlier completion of training, invoking Rule 303(1)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code which he said mandates seniority from the date of training completion. The respondents, however, were ranked higher in the order of merit by the Railway Recruitment Board and were sent for training later due to pending antecedent inquiries. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that seniority must follow the order of merit and not be altered by the timing of training, rejecting the appellant's claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the 1993 amendment to the rule could not be applied retroactively and that the recruitment board’s ranking governs inter‑se seniority unless a specific rule provides otherwise. Consequently, the tribunal’s decision was upheld and the appellant’s request for seniority was denied.

Issues considered

Whether seniority of railway officers selected in the same batch should be determined by the date of completion of training under Rule 303(1)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code or by the order of merit as fixed by the Railway Recruitment Board.

Subjects

seniorityrailway service lawrecruitment boardinter se seniorityRule 303training completionadministrative law

Judgment

                     G. DEENDAYALAN AMBEDKAR                                        A
                                        v.
                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 29, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                                 B

         Railway Establishment Code: Rule 303 (I)(a).

         Service law-Seni01ity-Reckoning of-Railway Recruitment
Board-Reouitment of Assistant Station Masters-Selection list-Respon-                C
dents senior in the order of merit-Appellant who was junior in order of me1it
completed their training earlier than respondents-Their claim that seni01ity
should be reckoned from the date of completion of training rejected by
Tribunal-Tribunal holding that appellant cannot scale a march over respon-
dents-Appeal-Held, the Tribunal was justified and right in not directing the
respondent to give seniority to the appellant over the respondents-Respon-          D
dents were selected in the same batch and rank; in order of merit they were
seniors to the appellant-As they had not been sent for training, necessmily
t,'1eir ranking given in the list of candidates selected in the order of merit by
the Rec1uitment Board cannot be given a go-by-The order of the Tribunal
does not warrant interference.                                                      E
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15528-29
of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.94 and 1.3.95 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 753/93 and R.A.              F
No. 22 of 1994.

         S.R. Bhat for the Appellant.

         P.P. Malhotra, Wasim A. Qadri and D.S. Mehra for the Respon-
dents.                                                                              G
     "The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.

         We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                               H
                                    377
    378                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S:C.R.

A        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 came
B to be selected by Railway Recruitment Board and were placed in a panel
     prepared on June 28, 1985 as 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
C the ground that he had completed his training earlier to them and as per
     Rule 303 (l)(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 on December 23, 1985 and joined
     the post on June 22, 1986, he became senior to the respondents. The
D ·· Tribunal in the order under appeal, has said that the respondents, though
     were selec:ed 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. Therefore, the appellant cannot scale a
     march over them in the order of seniority.

E        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 (l)(a) of the Code, but on May
  31, 1993, the Rule came to be amended amplifying what was latent with
  potential mischief for the arbitrary exercise of power in picking up and
F sending  the candidates batch-wise for training and giving them accelerated
  seniority over the candidates who were put below 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 facie
  we found force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant,
G 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 these circumstances,, since they
  had not been sent for training, necessarily their ranking given in the list of
H candidates selected in the order of merit by the Recruitment Board cannot
                        G.D.AMBEDKARv. U.O.l.                           379
be given a go-by and they cannot be given accelerated seniority to the         A
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 Recruit'llent
Board should be maintained when more than one persons are selected, the
same inter se seniority should be maintained for future promotions unless
                                                                               B
Rules prescribe passing of departmental test as a condition for confirma-
tion 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 to give seniority to the appellant over the respon-
dents. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not warrant interference.

      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
                                                                               c
T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "seniority"Sign in to search