IMPORTANT POINT
The method of recruitment in Rule 4(b) of Railways Recruitment Rules in so far as it operates against promotee officers has been diluted to a certain extent by reserving the power to vary the percentage allocated to promotees which may be both downward and upward depending upon the exigencies of service and march of the events.

Headnote:Railways Recruitment Rules-Rule 4(b)-Method of Recruitment-Interpretation-Tribunal holding that 38 Group B (Class II Officers) promoted in excess of normal quota of 40% have to be promoted on regular basis against future vacancies-Whether correct? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed.
       Held : No doubt the second sentence in clause (b) places a ceiling of 40 per cent on the vacancies to be filed up by departmental promotion. The Note reinforces this mandate by providing that in case of shortfall in the promotional quota of 40 per cent, those vacancies remaining should be allocated to direct recruits. That means, in a given year, the direct recruits can go beyond 60 per cent, if sufficient number of promotee officers are not available. It is a different thing that it had never happened and the direct recruitment could not be made in some years even to the full extent of 60 per cent. But, that is what the Rule provides. However, the rule in so far as it operates against the promotee officers has been diluted to a certain extent by reserving the power to vary the percentage allocated to promotees. The variation, in our view, could be both downward and upward, depending upon the exigencies of service and the march of events. Going by the plain language, the variation could be either way. If the variation was intended only to curtail but not to enhance the promotion quota of 40 per cent, suitable language could have been employed. That apart, the word not more than itself would have provided some flexibility to the appointing authority to reduce the promotee quota in a given year for good and relevant reasons. Hence, it is not appropriate and proper to limit the ambit of variation to the reduction of percentage. If the last sentence in Clause (b) is to be read subject to the preceding sentence with the appended note, the very purpose for which such power is reserved to the Government will be lost. A reading of the Rule so as to confine the variation of percentage to impinge on the normal promotee quota but not vice-versa is clearly unwarranted either on the plain language of the provision or its intendment. There is nothing which precludes the Government of India to take a policy decision that the percentage should be so varied so as to give the benefit to the stagnating promotee officers. When once such policy decision is taken, the normal rule that 40 per cent is the maximum for departmental promotees would stand protanto modified for the time being. Of course, such variation, either upward or downward should be based on rational basis and relevant considerations. When once such test is satisfied, there is no difficulty in giving effect to the variation of percentage so as to operate in favour of promotee officers. The Tribunal harped on the fact that there is no power of relaxation under the rules such as the one provided for by the Indian Railway Traffic Service Rules. The provision for variation of percentage from time to time in case of necessity is for all practical purposes equivalent to the power of relaxation. There is no particular reason why the Class II promotee office of S&T department should be treated differently from the same category in Traffic department. The application of such different standards could very well be avoided by giving a wider meaning to the expression "varied from time to time". Whether it be variation or relaxation, it is meant to provide a leeway for adjustment in exigencies of service which is very much necessary in administrative interest and to cope up with unforeseen contingencies. (Para 7)
       Held consequently : Therefore, we are of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Union of India in appointing 127 Group B officers of S&T department of Railways to the junior scale of Group A by the impugned order dated 15.9.1992. The Central Administrative Tribunal has committed an error of law in interpreting the relevant rule and holding that 38 Group B (Class II officers) promoted in excess of normal quota of 40 percent have to be promoted on regular basis against future vacancies. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. We make no order as to costs. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.) Principal Bench, passed on 4.8.1995 in O.A. No. 574 of 1993, the present appeal has been filed by the second respondent in O.A., which is an Association of Class II Railway Officers and one of the respondents in the O.A. The O. A. was filed in the C.A.T. by six Class I Officers working as Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineers (ASTEs), who are respondents 1 to 6 herein. The appellant-Association is espousing the cause of Group B Officers of Indian Railways Services of Signals Engineers (IRSSE), who were, by an order dated 15.9.1992 issued by the Ministry of Railways, appointed substantively to the Junior Scale of IRSSE with effect from 23.7.1992. The Group B (Class II) posts constitute the base level of gazetted cadre on the Indian Railways and these posts are filled up by promotion, from amongst Group C personnel through the process of selection. Immediately above Group B are the Junior Scale Group A posts. It is a feeding cadre for the Group A posts at higher level. The appointments for Group A Junior Scale posts are made partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion from amongst eligible Group B Officers as per the quotas prescribed in the recruitment Rules. The incumbents of posts in Group A Junior Scale and in Group B are designated as Assistant Officers and it appears that these posts are operated inter-changeably. As per the recruitment rules, Group B Officers who have rendered three years of non-fortuitous service in the grade are eligible for consideration for promotion to Group A /Junior Scale. It is common ground that the 127 Officers covered by the appointment order dated 15.7.1992 were working for nearly 8 to 10 years against regular Group A vacancies and most of them were promoted to Senior Scale on ad hoc basis and were working as such for several years. Apparently, the eligible Group B Officers could not be promoted to Group A Junior Scale for administrative reasons viz., delay in recruitment process of Group A Officers and constitution of DPC. There was virtually stagnation of a number of Group B Officers who as already stated were working on ad hoc basis in Senior Scale vacancies of Group A . With a view to discontinue the ad hoc arrangements and to give better promotional opportunities to Group B Officers who were stagnating without regular promotion, the Ministry of Railways proposed additional posts in Junior Time Scale not only in Signal and Telecommunication Department, with which we are concerned, but also in various other departments of Railways. As against 654 additional posts proposed by the Railways, the UPSC agreed for creation of 463 posts. Out of these, the allocation for the Signal and Telecommunication Department was 76. These additional posts (76) were to be filled by promotion of Group B Officers in relaxation of the normal quota and such variation of quota was permissible, according to the Railways, under Rule 4(b) of the relevant recruitment Rules. In the reply filed by the Railways before the Tribunal, it is stated that the appointment of 127 Group B Officers to Junior Time Scale was made against 153 vacancies in the promotion quota as per the particulars given below:

Recruitment Direct Recruitment Promotion quota year Quota

1989 35 (60%) 23(40%) + 2 (Carry forward vacancies)

1990 42(29%) 104(71%) (including additional 76 posts decided by the Govt. in consultation with UPSC, for reasons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document