JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-The dispute in the present appeals relates to the question of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees on the post of First Fireman working under the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli, Karnataka.

2. Recruitment on the post of Fireman "A", as indicated in the Railway Establishment Manual, was to be made originally to the extent of 50 per cent by direct recruitment and remaining 50 per cent by promotion. Subsequently, the rule of recruitment was altered and it was provided that post of Fireman "A" would be filled up 100 per cent by promotion.

3. On 15.11.1985, Railway Recruitment Board advertised 66 posts of Apprentice Fireman "A". The appellants applied for the posts and were ultimately selected by the Railway Recruitment Board. In 1988, they were appointed as Apprentice Fireman and were placed on two years training. After completion of training, they were appointed as First Fireman on 18.7.1990 except appellants 10 and 28 who were absorbed on 20.10.1990 and 21.3.1991 respectively. Another direct recruit who has been arrayed as respondent No. 148 in this appeal, was appointed on 5.9.1990.

4. The process of recruitment to the other 50 per cent of vacancies by promotion was started sometime in April, 1987 and respondents 4 to 143 who were working as Fireman "B" were appointed, pending regular selection for promotion, on ad hoc basis, between 1987-1990.

5. It may be mentioned here that pursuant to the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, the posts of Fireman "A" and Fireman "B" were merged and designated as First Fireman while the post of Fireman "C" was redesignated as Second Fireman with effect from 1.1.1986 vide Notification dated 3.11.1987.

6. In 1990, the appellants after completion of two years training were appointed as First Fireman and were placed on probation. The process of selection for promotion on the post of First Fireman continued and as a result of that selection, respondents 4 to 143 were promoted and by order dated 18.1.1992, their ad hoc promotion was regularised with effect from 16.12.1991. On 11th of January, 1993, a provisional seniority list of First Fireman, as on 31.12.1992, was published wherein all the appellants were shown below the contesting respondents 4 to 143. This seniority list was challenged by the appellants before the Central Administrative Tribunal but the Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 13.3.1996 dismissed the petition. The Tribunal found that the placement of appellants below respondents 4 to 143 was perfectly valid. It is this judgment which is challenged before us in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants were appointed on the post of First Fireman in 1990 while the respondents 4 to 143 were regularised on the post of First Fireman by order dated 18.1.1992 and, therefore, the appellants would rank senior to respondents 4 to 143 in terms of para 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual.

8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that respondents who were subsequently selected for regular promotion had been promoted to the post of First Fireman in 1987 on ad hoc basis which was permissible under the Rules and the process of selection for making promotion on the post of First Fireman consumed sufficiently long time and on being ultimately selected for promotion, services of respondents 4 to 143 were regularised. They, it is contended, would be entitled to reckon their seniority on the post of First Fireman with effect from the date of their ad hoc appointment. The entire period of service for which they worked in ad hoc capacity will have to be counted towards seniority as these respondents could legally be promoted to the post of First Fireman in ad hoc capacity. Ad hoc promotions were permissible under the Railway Establishment Manual and, therefore, the promotion of respondents 4 to 143 to the post of First Fireman being in consonance with the p