Promotion under LDCE quota is not automatic and entails a process, and there can be no parity between promotion under 80% quota and promotion under LDCE quota.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated September 5, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being OA 3276/2013, whereby the Tribunal has adjourned proceedings sine die on the ground that similar issue is sub judice before this Court in W.P.(C) 1024/2014 which arises from OA No.3133/2012, titled Sunder Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors..

2. The facts as noted form the record are that, in the Indian Railways prior to the year 2003, the selection criteria for Office Superintendent Grade-II (`OS Grade-II', for short) was 100% promotion from the post of Head Clerk. With the cadre restructuring scheme issued by the Railway Board vide circular No. RBE No 177/2003, dated October 9, 2003, the selection criteria of OS Grade-II cadre was re-organised and 20% of the posts were made to be filled through Direct Recruitment quota and remaining 80% through promotional quota from the lower grade of Clerk. Later on, the element of 20% of Direct Recruitment quota was replaced by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination LDCE vide circular No. RBE No. 102/2005 dated June 17, 2005.

3. On July 15, 2007, Northern Railway issued a notification for selection to the post of OS Grade-II in the scale of Rs.5,500 - Rs.9,000/- under 20% LDCE quota in the Headquarter Office, New Delhi. However, the selection was not conducted. Subsequently, on March 17, 2011, another notification was issued for the selection of OS Grade-II under 20% LDCE quota for the serving graduates working in the post of Head Clerk, Senior Clerk and Clerk, having requisite experience. The written test was held on August 6, 2011 and a provisional panel of successful candidates issued on December 7, 2011. All the candidates who were placed on the panel were informed and on successful completion of requisite training, they were posted in different departments as per the vacancy position and were also assigned seniority in their respective department from the date of joining as OS Grade-II.

4. The 38 empanelled candidates including the petitioners herein, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3276/2013, seeking the benefits of promotion as OS Grade-II with effect from November 1, 2003, i.e., from the date of implementation of the cadre restructuring on the ground that the 20% posts were created because of restructuring, being an element of Direct Recruitment quota in OS Grade-II and later replaced with LDCE quota vide Board's letter dated June 17, 2005, against which their promotions were delayed. The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die to await the outcome of the writ petition filed against the judgment of the Tribunal in Sunder Singh v. Union of India, OA 3133/2011.

5. The case of the petitioners as contended by Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate and Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate is that, vide Circular No. RBE 177/2003, the Railway Board under paragraph 11.1 had introduced an element of Direct Recruitment to the extent of 20% posts, which was reviewed by the Railway Board in terms of the circular No. RBE 102/2005, wherein it decided to do away with the Direct Recruitment quota and introduce an element of LDCE.

6. His submission was that, Head Clerk, Senior Clerk and Clerk in the feeder cadre who possessed Graduation Degree were eligible to be considered, but the department did not initiate the selection process till 2007. In the meantime, 80% of the posts in the grade of Rs.5,500 - Rs.9000/- continued to be filled by promotion from the lower grade of Rs.5,000 - Rs.8,000/-, as per the procedure in vague.

7. According to him, the delay caused in initiating the selection process under the LDCE quota, which got finalized only in December, 2011, is hostile discrimination qua the persons eligible under 20% quota, who were in the zone of consideration in 2003/2006, and were actually selected in the year 2011.

8. It was his submission that, no