Important Point
The relevant rule as in existence on the date on which vacancy arose would govern the inter se seniority and accordingly the unamended Para 303(a) of Railway Establishment Manual viz., the merit obtained by the employees in the examination held at the end of the training period would determine the inter se seniority of the candidates se­lected as Depot Store Keeper by the Railway Recruitment Board.

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed against the order of the Cen­tral Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 20th October, 1995, in O.A. No. 470 of 1994. The question for consideration is whether the inter se seniority of the appellants had been rightly determined by the Railway Authorities as per Para 303(a) of the Rail­way Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Manual’) and was illegally interfered with by the Tribunal on the basis of a provi­sion which came into existence subsequently.

2. Admittedly, vacancy arose in the post of Depot Store Keeper Grade III in Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, in July 1989, and advertisement inviting applications for the said posts had been issued by the Compe­tent Authority. The Railway Recruitment Board Jammu Tawi selected 29 candidates on 11.7.89. Under the Rules the candidates are required to undergo training. The 29 candidates thus selected, were sent for training in four different batches and after completion of their training started discharging their duties as Depot Store Keeper. The Railway Authorities drew up the seniority list of the said 20 Depot Store Keepers in accordance with Para 303(a) of the Manual, as it stood prior to its amendment on the basis of the merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 filed a Representation on 3.8.92 challenging the seniority list. That Representation having been rejected by the Government they ap­proached the Central Administrative Tribunal contending inter alia that since they were sent for training in the first batch itself and completed the training much earlier than other batch of personnel they are entitled to be declared senior to others. The appellants contested before the Tribunal both on the ground that the application is grossly barred by time and also on the ground that the seniority inter se has been rightly determined in accordance with Para 303(a) of the Manual and consequently the respective merit after the end of the training is the determining factor and earlier in point of time for getting the training is immaterial. The Tribunal, however, came to hold that respondents 5 to 9 having successfully completed the training before the present appellants and other respondents, said 5 to 9 who were applicants before the Tribunal, would rank senior.

3. Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel­lants, contended that when recruitment to a cadre under the Railways is made through the Railway Service Commission then the seniority of such recruits has to be determined in accordance with Para 303. She further contended that vacancy having arisen in July 1989 process of selection for the same having started and completed on 11.7.89 the relevant provision, as it stood then would govern the inter se senior­ity and not the amended provision. Under the pre-amended provision it is the order of merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period which determines the inter se seniority and the appellants having obtained higher merit at the examination held at the end of the training has rightly been shown senior in the Gradation List and the Tribunal erroneously interfered with the same, Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, learned senior counsel further submitted that the Provi­so to Para 303(a) of the Manual which has been quoted and considered by the Tribunal was no there on the Statute Book either when the vacancy arose or at the time when the selection was completed and, therefore, the said proviso cannot be attracted. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has committed error by deciding the seniority on the basis as to which batch joined the training course earlier. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 9 on the other hand contended, that at the relevant point of time the provision of Para 303(a) stood, as indicated in Paragraph 8 of the order of the Tribunal and in that view of the matter the Tribunal r