1994 Supreme(SC) 1288

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Sahai and N.P. Singh, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 9177-78 of 1994
Decided On: 14.12.1994
M.S. Usmani and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Afzal and R.D. Upadhyay, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Kitty Kumaramangalam, Arvind Kumar Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao and S. Muralidhar, Advs.

Headnote:

Challenge - Quashing of Order - Application - Whether appellants who were selected and appointed by a competitive examination against quota reserved for graduates and were promoted even to a higher scale of pay could have been reverted subsequently on assumption that entire process of selection and appointment was against rules - Central Administrative Tribunal and affidavits filed by parties more particularly Railways are narrated in brief - In Railway Board introduced a scheme under para of Indian Railway Establishment Manual in which provision was made for recruitment of Traffic Apprentices to extent of in various supervisory posts in Transportation Department of Railways - In scheme of was bifurcated pursuant to decision taken in Departmental Council of Ministry of Railways under Joint Consultative Machinery Scheme and it was decided to recruit Traffic Apprentices by two methods - Through agency of Railway Service Commission and from amongst serving non-ministerial graduates of Transportation Department through open competition to be filled on basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination - It further provided that departmental examination was to be conducted strictly in order of merit by subjecting candidates to written test and viva voce - On Railway Board issued another letter communicating its decision that of annual vacancies in category of Section Controllers Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters grade - Were to be filled in through departmental competitive examination from Class non-Ministerial Staff who were gradates and less than years of age - Whether it was well founded - In August and posts in Northern Railway were restructured - It came into effect - Whether existing cadres or SM/ASMs was separate or combined - Whether existing structure was combined or separate since different practices were in vogue in different zones - Whether selection and appointment of appellants in pursuance of examination in could be said to be illegal or against Rules in view of restructuring of grade staff and second whether even if it was so could appellants be reverted even though they had moved higher in hierarchy and had been promoted to higher scale of SM or TIs - Issue whether vacancies for which selection was in and all processes of selection had been completed in June except declaration of panel could be said to be available - Whether it could be confined to only those who had been sent for training prior to or it could be extended even to those who had been selected prior to this date as appeal is liable to succeed on other ground - Held, Appellants having been selected and appointed as Station Masters through a competitive examination in which others either did not appear or failed they could not have been reverted to a post below post in which they had been regularized - It was urged that even though appellants had been selected for post of SM in grade of but they having been appointed in higher grade of after suitability test Railways were not justified in either reverting them or setting aside selection after a lapse of nearly six years - It was urged that even if for any reason appellants were reverted from higher post they could not be pushed down below ASMs and their placement below all ASMs promoted as a result of restructuring was arbitrary - This according to appellant had resulted even in disturbing original seniority of appellants as ASM prior to selection which was contrary to rules - It was urged that respondents wrongly construed restructuring circular as what was provided therein was that a panel of non-selection post would lapse in consequence of restructuring - But this could not apply to selection of SMs which was a selection post both before and after restructuring - It was also urged that in any case appellants having moved up higher in hierarchy setting aside of their selection and appointment which was otherwise in accordance with law only because of restructuring G.O relating to grade C and D Railways was unfair - Restructuring was done to upgrade certain percentage of posts in each grade of ASM and SM - Percentage was to be worked out on cadre in each category as it existed on - This upgradation had nothing to do with graduate quota - But same difficulty does arise as paragraph of restructuring order provided that vacancies arising after July would be filled in accordance with procedure provided in circular - This gave rise to argueable issue whether vacancies for which selection was in and all processes of selection had been completed in June except declaration of panel could be said to be available on - Much was said and could be said on behalf of appellants but it is not necessary to express any opinion on various issues touching upon applicability of circular to vacancies other than those which arose out of restructuring - Nor it is necessary to express any opinion on clarification issued in August regarding graduate quota and whether it could be confined to only those who had been sent for training prior to or it could be extended even to those who had been selected prior to this date as appeal is liable to succeed on other ground - Ordered Accordingly