Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
C.T. Balachandran & Others
Versus
Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office, Park Town (P.O), Chennai & Others
W.P. No. 27216 of 2007
Decided on: 07-08-2009
Rule 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual provides that candidates sent for initial training to Training Schools will rank in seniority in the relevant grade based on the merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period. The determination of seniority should be done before being posted against a working post. The procedure adopted by the Railway Administration in this case deviated from this rule, resulting in a violation of the rule. The court held that the rule should prevail over the normal practice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Shunters and Goods Driver in the Southern Railway, challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. They sought to revise their seniority based on the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) ranking/merit list and be promoted on par with their immediate juniors. The applicants argued that the provisional seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The Tribunal held that the procedure adopted by the Administration, though not strictly in accordance with the rule, was in substantive compliance with the spirit of the instruction. The Tribunal dismissed the original application. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order, arguing that the failure to adopt the procedure under the rule was illegal. They contended that the interse seniority should have been fixed based on the RRB merit/ranking. The respondents argued that the procedure adopted was fair and reasonable. The High Court held that the procedure adopted by the Administration was contrary to the rule and illegal. The court directed the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the RRB list and grant other consequential reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the procedure adopted by the Administration was contrary to Rule 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the same is illegal. The court further held that the candidates should be placed in seniority based on the RRB merit list, as done in a similar case in the Palghat Division. The court directed the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the RRB list and grant other consequential reliefs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in such a manner alone. Practical difficulties expressed by the Administration in implementing the rule would not justify their conduct in violating the rule. The court also held that the rule shall prevail over the normal practice. The court further held that the procedure adopted by the Railway Administration was contrary to the rule and illegal. The court directed the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the RRB list and grant other consequential reliefs.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The Railway Administration is directed to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the RRB list and grant other consequential reliefs within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
The above writ petition has been filed by Shunters and Goods Driver in the Southern Railway, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is O.A. No. 880 of 2003, dated 110. 2004.
2. The application approached the Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein dated 20.2.2003, by which the 2nd respondent sustained the provisional seniority list dated 110. 2000 insofar as refusing to revise the seniority of the applicants in the order of Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) ranking/merit list dated 12. 1997 and direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants as per the order of the seniority in RRB list dated 12. 1997 and to promote the applicants as Shunters and Goods Drivers on par with their immediate juniors in the RRB seniority list with all arrears and consequential benefits.
3. The case of the applicants is that they were recruited through RRB for the post of Diesel Assistant/Assistant Drivers in the 4 year 1997 and the RRB issued a merit list containing the numbers of 220 candidates based on the examination conducted by them. The applicants were thereafter directed to appear for medical examination and 170 candidates, who were found medically fit, were appointed by Proceeding dated 27. 1997. Such of those candidates were required to undergo training for a period of 50 weeks and the offer of appointment was subject to successful completion of training and passing final examination, both oral and written. The applicants were sent for training in Zonal Electrical Traction Training Centre at Avadi on 6. 1997 and they were divided into six groups for the purpose of imparting training and the training period was reduced from 50 weeks to 32 weeks.
4. On completion of training, the applicants were given posting as Assistant Driver and orders of absorption to 170 candidates were issued, who had successfully completed the training, which includes the applicants also. The order dated 7. 1998, specifically stated that the seniority position of the employees will be advertised later. On 110. 2000, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list containing the names of 525 persons including the candidates belonging to the earlier batch and the subsequent batches. The applicants batch, of the year 1997, are from Sl. Nos. 99 to 263.
5. The grievance of the applicants is that the provisional seniority list was not prepared in accordance with Rule 303(a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which contemplates that the ranking shall be based on a final examination to be conducted at the close of the training and that the seniority list ought to have been prepared before issuing posting orders. The applicants would further submit that the final examination was not conducted and they were not informed that the marks obtained in all the tests during the period of training would be the basis for fixation of their seniority. The applicants would also rely upon the observation made by the Tribunal in an earlier Original Application filed by them in O.A. Nos. 1014 of 2001 and 1015 of 2001, where a direction was issued by the Tribunal to consider the representation of the applicants, further observing that there has been infraction of Rule 303(a). On the above grounds, the applicants had approached the Tribunal with the aforesaid relief.
6. The Railway Administration filed a detailed Reply Statement, inter alia denying the allegations contained in the Original Application. The Railway Administration would accept that the final examination was not conducted, but, however, they would state that the employees were divided into 4 batches for training on rotational basis in different modules and each batch, on completion of the particular module, was subjected to examination. The candidates were tested at every stage and average marks at the end of the training was published on 2. 2000. The respondents would further submit that the applicants were clearly informed at the time
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
