Important Points
1. For purposes of appointment of General Managers in the Railways, eligibility criteria of having atleast two years of residual service must be reckoned from the date of accrual of vacancy of post of General Manager but such eligibility should not be defeated by unduly delaying appointment.
2. In the matter of appointment and also in giving promotion, the guarantee enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution cannot be violated.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Promotion-Appointment to post of General Managers in Railways-Paragraph 7.3 of Scheme for filling up posts of G.Ms.-Eligibility criteria that officers must have at least two years of residual tenure of service-Has to be reckoned from date of accrual of vacancy and not from date of empanelment for purpose of selection-Inter-se seniority of empanelled officers cannot be ignored -Intended purpose of paragraph 7.3 should not be defeated by delaying actual appointment from date of accrual of vacancy-Government must see that appointment is made atleast within three months from date of accrual of vacancy-In case of any relaxation of rule 7.3 same should not be arbitrary and capricious.
       (ii) Service Law-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16- Promotion - Guarantee enshrined under Articles 14 and 16-Cannot be violated. (Para 22)
       Held : In the matter of appointment and also in giving promotion, the guarantee enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be violated. If a panel of eligible officers for the purpose of appointment to the posts of General Manager or equivalent is prepared, then each of such empanelled officers must be held to have been found suitable for appointment to such post. Therefore, if the said empanelled officer conform to the requirement of para 7.3 of the Scheme, his inter se seniority cannot be ignored in giving appointment to the post of General Manager and equivalent. (Para 22)
       Para 7.3 of the scheme in express term refers to the residual service of at least two years on higher post of General Manager and equivalent. But the question that requires to be addressed is from which point of time, the said residual tenure is to be reckoned. In our view, para 7.3 of the Scheme must be given such fair and reasonable interpretation with reference to a fixed point of time so that there is no scope of introducing any uncertainty and variable factors thereby bringing unmerited hardship and injustices by eliminating some of the eligible senior officers either on account of normal procedural delay or delay caused in a designed manner. An empanelled officer having higher inter se seniority over others has a reasonable expectation to get appointment on the accrual of vacancy but if the actual appointment is not made promptly either on account of inherent time lag, associated with procedural formalities or on account of bureaucratic lethargy or by delaying the process of appointment in a calculated and designed manner, and eligible and senior officer in the panel cannot but suffer unmerited hardship if para 7.3 is interpreted in the manner advocated by the learned counsel for the respondents. In that event, such officer in the last leg of brilliant service career will be deprived of the fruits of toil and sincere efforts put in over the years. It is true that in para 7.3 the residual service for at least two years has been indicated in contradistinction to the language appearing in the matter of appointment as Member, Railway Board, but in our view, such expression of residual service for at least two years as contained in para 7.3 does not stand in the way of giving a fair and reasonable interpretation. In our view, para 7.3 must be held to be referable to the date of accrual of vacancy in order to ensure fairness and transparency in the matter of appointment as General Manager or equivalent. The date of accrual of vacancy is a fixed one and even if any manipulation is made about the date of accrual of vacancy, the actual date of accrual of vacancy can always be ascertained by a closer scrutiny. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention that accrual of vacancy is not a certain event and be easily subjected to manipulation. In our considered view, determination of residuary length of service with reference to accrual of vacancy will not only be consistent with the language of para 7.3 but such interpretation will also not frustrate the purpose for which residuary length of service is intended in para 7.3 of the Scheme. The court should lean in favour of such interpretation of a statute which conforms to justice and fair play and prevents potentiality to injustice be liberally construing the provision without intrinsically violating the language of the statute and the purpose intended to be achieved. We may indicate here that although the residual tenure is referable to the date of accrual of vacancy, the intended purpose of reasonable length of service in the post of General Manager and equivalent should not be permitted to be defeated by delaying the actual appointment from the date of accrual of vacancy for long. It will only be proper if the concerned authorities remain alive to the urgency in taking prompt action in making actual appointment, so that such appointment is made at least within three months from the date of accrual of vacancy. (Para 27)
       There cannot be any dispute in principle that if appointment is given to an officer out of the empanelled officers by relaxing the requirement under paragraph 7.3 of the Scheme by resorting to power of relaxation under para 10 of the Scheme, then such relaxation cannot be made arbitrarily and capriciously in favour of some by picking and choosing such officers in preference to others when being empanelled, the others should be held to be similarly circumstanced. In all these appeals, no appointments has been made to any empanelled officer whose residual tenure was less than two years from the date of accrual of vacancy. Shri B.S. Agarwal and Shri Kamal Raj were included in 1994-95 panel of the eligible officers for appointment to the posts of General Managers and equivalent. The officers who had two years of service from the date of accrual of vacancy had been appointed because Shri Agarwal and Shri Kamal Raj had not such residual service with reference to the date of accrual of vacancy. Therefore, the question of ignoring a senior officer by relaxing the requirement of para 7.3 of the Scheme in favour of some of junior officers did not arise. So far as Shri S.A.A. Zaidi is concerned, he was included in the panel of eligible officer for 1995-96. Out of the said panel, 17 appointments to the posts of General Manager and equivalent were made. Shri Zaidi was not appointed because he had not two years of residual service from the date of accrual of vacancy falling in his turn. Therefore, the question of any hostile discrimination against Shri Zaidi did not arise in the facts of the case. (Paras 23 & 28)

Judgment

G.N. Ray, J.-Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 25014/96 is directed against Order dated October 29, 1986 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2122/95. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 24361/96 is directed against order dated August 22, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No. 184/ 92 and the appeal arising out S.L.P. No. 9068/97 is directed against order dated March 7, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2563/96.

3. As the common question is involved is all the said appeals as to the interpretation of para 7.3 of the Scheme for making appointments to the posts of General Managers and equivalent in the Indian Railways, all the appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It will be appropriate if a short background of facts are noted.

4. The Indian Railway system is managed by the apex authority, namely, the Railway Board. The said Railway Board comprises of the Chairman, the Financial Commissioner and five other members viz. Member (Traffic), Member (Engineering), Member (Mechanical), Member (Staff) and Member (Electrical). In the hierarchy, immediately lower to the Board is the posts of General Managers and equivalent. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are 25 posts of General Managers and equivalent out of which nine posts are of General Managers of Zonal Railways, 10 posts are in Production and Construction Units and Director General Etc. and there are 6 Officers on Special Duty of the newly created Railway Zones.

5. The posts of General Managers and equivalent are filled up by selection on merit from amongst very senior and suitable administrative grade officers with eight different senior Administrative Grade Services excluding the Indian Railway Medical Service. Such selection is made by a very high level Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman, Railway Board, Secretary, Department of Personnel and a Member of Railway Board. The recommendations of the Selection Committee are approved by a Committee which amongst others includes the Prime Minister. No Railway employee has any legal right to claim appointment as a matter of course to the posts of General Managers or equivalent. The Scheme for filling up posts of General Managers and equivalent was notified vide Resolution No. E (O) III-84/PM6/136 dated July 16, 1986 which was further amended vide Resolutions dated January 30, 1987 and February 26, 1988. The main object of the Scheme was to lay down clear guidelines for selection of officers from various railway services for appointment to the posts of General Managers and equivalent on the Indian Railway.

6. As indicated earlier, the issue in all these appeals relates to the interpretation of para 7.3 of the aforesaid scheme. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to para 7.3 of the said Scheme:-

“Para 7.3: Only such of the empanelled officers would normally be appointed to posts of General Managers and equivalent as will be able to serve for at least two years on such higher post(s).”

7. Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina the learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant Union of India has submitted that in giving appointments in all the three appeals, the constitutional guarantee under Article 14 and 16 have not been violated. He has submitted if a reference to the fact situation is made, it will be evident that in all cases, appointments have been made in accordance with correct interpretation of paragraph 7.3 of the residual length of service of two years from the date of accrual of vacancy in accordance with the interpretation of the said paragraph by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal.

8. The learned Solicitor has submitted that the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1295

Cases Referred (1)