1. Selection for higher post — Provisional inclusion in panel — Deletion of name due to incorrect vacancy assessment — Reversion to substantive post — Writ petition under Article 226. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Shitla Sahai Srivastava, Appellant
Versus
General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 766 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Shaukat Husain, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. K. S. Chawla and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
K.S.CHAWLA, NIREN DEY, R.H.Dhebar, S.P.SINHA, SHAKUT HUSSAIN
K.S.CHAWLA, NIREN DEY, R.H.Dhebar, S.P.SINHA, SHAKUT HUSSAIN
"Reduction in rank" under Article 311(2) of the Constitution refers to a change in a person's classification within the service hierarchy, not a change in their seniority position or the deletion of their name from a provisional selection panel for promotion.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311 - Reduction in rank - Deletion of name from a selection panel for promotion - Whether such action amounts to a penalty or reduction in rank - If a civil servant has no right to a particular rank, reduction from an officiating higher rank to a substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment (Paras 10, 14).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 311 - Meaning of 'rank' - The expression 'rank' has reference to a person's classification and not his particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy of the service - Losing places in the seniority list is not tantamount to reduction in rank (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
An employee was called for a selection examination for a higher post due to an incorrect assessment of anticipated vacancies. The employee was placed on a selection panel, but the entry was specifically marked as provisional. Subsequently, the employee's name was deleted from the panel. The employee challenged this deletion, contending it amounted to a reduction in rank and violated the protections afforded under the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the inclusion in the panel was provisional, the employee did not acquire a right to the post. Therefore, the deletion of the name from the panel did not attract the provisions of Article 311.
Issues: Whether the deletion of an employee's name from a selection panel for promotion, especially when the inclusion was provisional, constitutes a "reduction in rank" within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that "rank" in Article 311(2) refers to a person's classification in the service hierarchy rather than their specific position or seniority within the same cadre. Consequently, losing seniority or being removed from a provisional selection list does not constitute a reduction in rank.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether deletion of name from a selection panel constitutes reduction in rank under Article 311, requiring a prior opportunity to be heard. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
3. Provisional inclusion in a selection panel confers no right to the post; reversion to substantive rank without penal consequences does not attract Article 311. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 )
4. Rank under Article 311(2) denotes classification in the service hierarchy, not relative seniority or position within the same cadre. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 17 )
6. Does the deletion of a name from a provisional selection panel constitute a reduction in rank under Article 311?
No. If a civil servant has no right to a particular rank, reduction from an officiating higher rank to a substantive lower rank is not ordinarily a punishment. Since the inclusion in the panel was expressly provisional, no right to the post was acquired. (Para 14 , 16 )
7. What is the legal interpretation of rank in the context of Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
The expression rank in Article 311(2) refers to a person's classification in the hierarchy of the service to which they belong, rather than their particular place or relative position within the same cadre. (Para 15 )
8. Does losing seniority positions within the same cadre amount to a reduction in rank?
No. Losing places in the seniority list within the same cadre is not tantamount to reduction in rank because officers within the same cadre hold the same rank, regardless of their seniority listing. (Para 15 )
Judgement
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.: This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which affirmed the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows
2. The appellant had been in the service of North Eastern Railway holding the substantive post of Travelling Ticket Examiner. The post of Travelling Ticket Inspector, which is the next higher post, is a selection post. Selection is made by a Selection Board in accordance with the Promotion and Selection Rules (Non-Gazetted) framed under para 158 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I (hereinafter referred to as the rules). Every year, an assessment of the number of vacancies that are likely to occur during that year is made. The Chief Commercial Superintendent is the appointing authority for the post of Ticket Inspectors. In accordance with R. 8 (7), eligible staff, upto four times the number of anticipated vacancies, shall be called up for written and viva voce tests. After the examination and the interview, the Board prepares a panel and promotions are made from the said panel.
3. In the year 1959, a Selection Board for preparing a panel for the ex-Muzaffarpur region was constituted. There were, during that year, eight existing vacancies which were to be filled up immediately. In addition, a panel of six was required to be drawn up. It was also expected that there would be nine more vacancies on account of upgrading of posts but this did not actually materialise. But, due to an incorrect assessment of the anticipated number of vacancies, 92 persons were called up for examination, whereas 56 persons should have been called up for written and viva voce tests.
4. There was a written examination on February 22, 1959 and March 31, 1959, and thereafter the Selection Board interviewed the candidates. As a result of the examination and the viva voce test, the Selection Board prepared a panel of fourteen persons and the appellant was given the twelfth rank in the panel. He was posted as officiating Travelling Ticket Inspector on or about July 28, 1960. The final list of persons brought on the panel was published in the Railway Gazette on January 1, 1961 and the appellant was shown at serial No. 13 in that panel. But a note was appended to the notification stating that the selection of the appellant and five others was provisional.
5. By a letter dated September 29, 1961, the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, under the orders of the General Manager, the prescribed authority, deleted the name of the appellant and five others who were shown at serial Nos. 9 to 14 in the panel.
6. On November 28, 1961, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, impugning the validity of the order dated September 29, 1961 in and by which his name had been removed from the panel. He contended that the deletion of his name from the panel indefinitely postponed his right of promotion and therefore, amounted to a reduction in rank.
7. The respondents contested the petition. They averred that the name of the appellant was deleted from the panel in accordance with rules, that he had no subsisting right to the post only by reason of the fact that his name was included in the panel, that the appellant and five other persons were called up for examination on an incorrect assessment of the number of vacancies. It was also contended for the respondents that the provisions of Art. 311 were not attracted.
8. By judgment dated March 14, 1963, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. He held that the deletion of the appellant s name from the panel did not amount to reduction in rank under Art. 311 and that therefore, he was not entitled to the notice prescribed by that article. The learned Judge also held that the appellant had not established that the decision of the respon
