Judgment

S.MOHAN, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE controversy in these cases arises out of the challenge by the first respondent in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7853 of 1992 (Indian Railway Traffic Service Association) to the amendment in the scheme for making appointments to the posts of General Managers in the Indian Railways. The effect of the amendment is the rule of predominance restricting the number of persons who could be appointed as General Managers from any one Railway Service, which was originally 6 out of 16 posts, was changed to 37.5 per cent of the total number of posts. Simultaneously, the total number of posts was increased to 19. This challenge was upheld by the central Administrative tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi.

(3) THE short facts are as under: In the year 1984, for the first time, a scheme of making appointments to the posts of General Managers was notified. That included a rule of predominance which restricted the number of posts of General Managers which could be held by officers of any one Railway Service. This scheme was replaced by a new scheme on 16/07/1986. In the said new scheme also rule of predominance was included. In terms of the said rule, holding of more than 6 posts of General Managers and equivalent by officers belonging to any one service was construed as undue predominance. The posts were enumerated in Appendix I to the scheme and are as follows: "APPENDIX I List of posts of General Managers

S.No.

Name of Post

No. of

posts

1.

General Managers (Open Line)

9

2.

General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Perambur.

1

3.

General Manager, Chittranjan Locomotive Works,

1

Chittaranjan.

4.

General Manager, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.

1

5.

General Manager, Wheel & Axle Plant, Bangalore.

1

6.

General Manager, North-east Frontier Riy. (Construction),

1

Guwahati.

7.

General Manager, Metro-Railway, Calcutta.

1

8.

Director General, Research, Designs and Standards

1

Organisation, Lucknow.

9.

Any other post that may be created after the publication of

the scheme in the scale of pay equivalent to the scale of

General Managers unless such post (or posts) is

specifically excluded from the scheme."

(4) PARAGRAPH 4 of the scheme stated that the scheme shall be applicable to the posts of General Managers and equivalent in the scale of Rs. 3000-3500 as listed in Appendix I (quoted above).

(5) THE total number of posts specified in Appendix I is 16. However, it requires to be noted that Rule No. 9 has provided for applicability of the scheme to any other post which may be created in the scale of pay equivalent to the scale of General Managers. The reason is to obviate the need to amend the scheme on each occasion when new posts are created or surrendered.

(6) ON 26/02/1988, an amendment to the scheme was brought about. Under that amendment three posts were added to Appendix 1. By the same resolution another amendment was made whereby in Explanation 1 to Paragraph 8 the figure "6" was substituted by "37.5%". It may be noted arithrnetically 6 out of 16 exactly comes to 37.5 per cent. The purpose of replacing the figure was in view of the increase of posts from 16 to 19 and further to take care of any future increase or decrease of posts. It was this amendment which was challenged by respondent I-Association. That came to be allowed by the central Administrative tribunal.

(7) AGGRIEVED by this the Union of India has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2802 of 1993 and the intervener, Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers Association, whose application for intervention was dismissed by the tribunal, has preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7853 of 1992.

(8) THE tribunal was of the view that the objective of the scheme is to provide equitable opportunities to the members of the various services. This was in order to ensure that these posts are manned by men of proven ability and competence after assessing their suita