JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 11th December, 1987 in a Petition filed by the 3rd Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal and an Order dated 22nd August, 1988 by which, pursuant to Judgment dated 11th December, 1987, the 1st Respondent has determined that Appellant is junior to 3rd Respondent and reverted him to post of Poster in the Commercial Department.

3. The 3rd Respondent has not appeared even though served.

4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

On 22nd July, 1972 the Appellant was appointed as a Porter on casual basis in the Transportation (Traffic) Department of the South Central Railway, Hubli Division. On 1st March, 1973 the Appellant was conferred a temporary status.

The 3rd Respondent was appointed as a Porter in the Commercial Department on 30th August, 1974.

5. Rule 180 of the Railway Establishment Manual reads as under :

"180. Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial Department :-

All railway servants in the lowest group should be eligible for consideration for promotion to higher grades in both the Transportation and Commercial Branches. Applications should be invited from amongst candidates eligible for promotion from both the branches. All railway servants who apply will be considered. All ad hoc seniority list will be prepared on the basis of length of continuous service in the grade and suitable men selected and placed on a panel for training. Systematic and adequate training and examinations or tests must precede actual promotions."

As provided in this Rule Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were allowed to attend promotional courses to qualify as Ticket Collectors. In 1979 both Appellant and 3rd Respondent were allowed to compete for selection to the post of Ticket Collectors. However, neither got selected. On 20th August, 1980 the Appellant got posted in the Commercial Department. They then again competed in 1981. On 17th June, 1981 both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were shown to have been selected. However, as there were no vacancies they were not appointed.

6. Thereafter both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were appointed as Ticket Collectors on ad hoc basis on the condition that this would not confer any right for regular appointment and that they would make room for regular appointees as and when selected and appointed.

7. On 27th September, 1981 a provisional seniority list was prepared. In the seniority list the name of the Appellant was missing. The Appellant made a representation against the fact that his name had not been included in the seniority list.

8. Selections for the post Ticket Collector were again made in 1982 and 1983. In 1983 the Appellant was selected along with 17 other persons. Pursuant to this selection on 28th May, 1983 the Appellant was promoted as Ticket Collector in a vacant post. It must be mentioned that in this selection the 3rd Respondent had also competed, but was not selected. Thereafter another selection was held in April 1986. In that selection again the 3rd Respondent appeared but was again not selected.

9. On 25th September, 1986 the Appellant was promoted to the grade of Senior Ticket Collector. On 29th September, 1986 the 3rd Respondent who, during all this period, had been working as an ad hoc Ticket Collector was reverted to make room for candidates who had been successfully empanelled. On 5th January, 1987 the 3rd Respondent challenged his reversion and the promotion order of the Appellant by filing a Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

10. On 11th December, 1987 the Central Administrative Tribunal held that the promotion of the Appellant was not proper as the Appellant was not eligible. The Central Admin istrative Tribunal held that the Appellant was working in the Transportation (Traffic) Department and the selections were to be from persons working in the Commercial Department. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that as the Appellant had been appointed in Commercial Department on