The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, particularly Paragraphs 302 and 303, to determine the seniority of employees in posts filled by promotion and direct recruitment, and the inter se seniority of candidates not required to undergo training.

ORDER :

1. These two appeals are directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the application filed by the appellant as well as the application filed for review. The question for consideration in these appeals is, what would be the date with effect from which the seniority of the appellant would be reckoned in the post of Skilled Artisan in the Electrical Department of the Southern Railway.

2. It is undisputed that the post of Skilled Artisan is filled up by 50% by promotion, 25% by direct recruitment and 25% by selection from serving staff. It is also further clear that some of these selects are required to under go some training before they are absorbed in the cadre, while others are not required to undergo any training and are absorbed directly on being selected. The appellant belongs to that category who is not required to undergo any training and got himself absorbed on 13.07.1988.The question of inter se seniority of these employees is governed by the provisions contained in paragraphs 302 and 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Out of the 7 candidates who were selected for being appointed against the 25% quota available by direct recruitment, 4 of them including the appellant, did not require any training for being absorbed and they were at Sl.Nos.1, 4, 6 and 7, while 3 others, who were selected in the same process of selection, had to undergo a training before being absorbed in the cadre, they being at Sl. Nos. 2, 3, and 5.

3. In the provisional seniority list that was issued on 30.11.1991, the present appellant was not shown senior to the promotes, who came by promotion later than the appellant and were absorbed as Skilled Artisan on 4.8.1988. These promotes obviously came as against 50% quota meant for being filled up by promotion. The appellant, having been shown junior to those promotes in the provisional seniority list dated 30.11.1991, a representation had been filed claiming inter alia that his promotion in the cadre has to be governed from the date of his absorption on 13.07.1988.While that representation was pending before the Competent Authority, the Central Administration Tribunal in one Original Application filed being OA No. 144/1991 considered the question of inter se seniority. Bearing in mind the provisions contained in paragraphs 302 and 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, it disposed of the said OA by order dated 13.03.1992, Laying down the principles and requiring the Railway Administration to draw up the seniority list afresh in accordance with the principles decided there in. A revised seniority list was issued by the Railway Administration on09.08.1992, but even in that seniority list the present appellant was placed below the promotes who were absorbed as Skilled Artisan later than the appellant on 04.08.1988. In accordance with the Tribunal's decision dated 13.3.1992, a circular was issued by the Railway Administration on30.10.1992.The case of the appellant is that his case is squarely covered by the aforesaid circular of the Government dated 30.10.1992. The Administration, however, ordered that the appellant's seniority could only be counted in the cadre w.e.f.31.07.1990, the date on which one Anantharam who was selected along with the appellant for the post and was required to undergo some training and ultimately absorbed in the cadre after successful completion of the Tribunal, as said Anantharam had secured higher position than appellant. The appellant, therefore, filed an OA registered as OA No. 111/ 93 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, praying there in that the seniority in his case should be counted w. e. f.13.07.1988.The Tribunal, by the impugned order having dismissed the same on a finding that the circular dated 30.10.1992 is merely prospective and the appellant's seniority cannot be counted in accordance with the said circular, the present appeals have been preferred.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellan