The panel for 25% LDCE quota in Railways is to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the examination and not on the basis of seniority in the feeder grade/cadre.

1. Since common question of law is being raised in the instant bunch of petitions, hence are considered to be decided with consent of the parties by the present order. The present writ petitions are directed against orders of Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") where the basic question raised for consideration was as to what will be the mode of selection to be followed by respondent (Railways while making appointment against 25% vacancies reserved to be filled by Limited (Departmental Competitive Examination ("LDCE").

2. At the very outset it was brought to the notice of this Court that earlier one Shivraj Singh Solanki & Vishnu Kumar Gautam fled their respective original applications in the year 2004 before the tribunal being aggrieved by result of their participation in the selection held for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II against 25% LDCE quota & their objection was that in terms of relevant guidelines laid down by respondent Railways under their Railway Establishment Rules the posts in respective cadres are to be filled by 75% by promotion and 25% was reserved to be filled amongst in-service candidates by adopting mode of selection LDCE. Both the applicants were aggrieved by the decision of respondent Railway in making final selection of the candidates who qualified in LDCE held for the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II while the final panel was drawn on the basis of seniority in the feeder grade/cadre & subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal was that such of the applicants who had appeared against 25% LDCE quota the panel ought to have been prepared on the basis of marks which they originally secured in the examination on the basis of merit & seniority in the feeder cadre cannot be made a basis for preparation of final panel.

3. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that panel of successful candidates has to be revised & prepared on the basis of marks having been secured in the examination under LDCE by the candidates & if finds place in the revised/reviewed panel, they will be entitled for grant of appointment along with consequential benefits, however, order of the Tribunal came to be challenged by the respondent Railways by filing DB Civil Writ Petitions No. 979/09 & 981/09 & that came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment 10.02.2009 and order of the Tribunal impugned was affirmed & it was observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to supra dated 10.02.2009 that as regards 25% LDCE quota, its panel has to be prepared on the basis of marks having been secured in the examination by the candidates who participated in the selection process & not on the basis of seniority in the feeder grade/cadre. What was observed in the judgment referred to supra dated 10.02.2009, having direct bearing on the issue raised herein by the respective parties for consideration by this Court, being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:-

"The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Railway is in reference to (Para 219 of the Manual and also the circular Annexure-R/4. Perusal of the provision of Para 219 of the Manual and circular reveals that Para 219 of the Manual applies to the case of normal promotion based on selection and not in the case of LDCE. It is not in dispute that it is not a selection made to fill up the post by way of promotion, where the panel is drawn based on seniority and not on the basis of merit and therein only those candidates who secured 80% marks or above, are placed at the top of the list being outstanding candidates. So far as the present case is concerned, it is the case where 25% posts are to be filled up by way of LDCE which are other than the posts filled up by way of normal promotion method. For filling up the post by way of LDCE, a separate circular has been issued by the Railway which is Annexure-6 to the original application and is part of Annexure-1 to these writ petitions. Peru