Promotion and seniority must be determined based on established rules, even when candidates have equal examination scores.

Headnote:(A) Promotion Rules - IREM Vol I - Rule 312 - Seniority determination - The applicant challenged the promotion of a junior colleague based on erroneous seniority assignment despite equal examination marks. The court found no procedural anomaly in the respondents' decision to promote the junior colleague based on established rules. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Equal Marks - Seniority - When candidates score equal marks, seniority must be determined based on the date of joining or transfer, as per applicable rules. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an Assistant Loco Pilot, contested the promotion of a junior colleague who was erroneously placed above him despite equal marks in a written examination. The applicant claimed seniority based on earlier service records.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the respondents' decision, confirming that the promotion process adhered to established rules and that the applicant's claims lacked merit.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the promotion of the junior colleague was justified despite equal examination scores.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the promotion process followed the correct procedures and that seniority was appropriately assigned based on the rules, dismissing the applicant's claims.

Result: Application dismissed.

ORDER

By Ms. Mallika Arya, AM

The applicant joined the respondents’ department on 21.01.2005 as Assistant Loco Pilot. A notification was issued by the respondents on 30.07.2013 notifying 8 vacancies for promotion to the post of Loco Inspector. In pursuance to the same the applicant and private respondent No. 3 gave their willingness for appearing in the written examination which was conducted on 09.07.2014. The marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination were divided into two categories, wherein 30 marks were allotted for service record on the basis of assessment of ACRs for three years. The result of the written examination was declared on 06.08.2014 and the applicant was found selected against UR post. As per the document dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure A-2) another person named as Kushal Singh (ST) was also found fit against UR post. However in pursuance of the selection panel dated 06.08.2014 the posting orders were never issued. The respondents issued another posting order dated 16.01.2015 notifying the name of respondent No. 3 in place of the applicant.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant obtained 70 marks in the written examination out of 100 and he also got 30 marks in the service record since he had outstanding ACRs for the year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The marks obtained in the written examination were to be divided by factor of two and therefore, the applicant scored 65 marks. Respondent No. 3 on the same parameters also got 65 marks. Due to a clerical error the marks awarded to respondent No. 3 were wrongly mentioned as 38 instead of 39. When the clerical error was detected, the same was rectified and the respondent No. 3 was awarded 65 marks equal to that of the applicant. As per the instructions on the subject, if the marks awarded to the candidates were equal then seniority had to be taken into account. Therefore, since the applicant did not figure in the select panel, he preferred a detailed representation on 11.08.2014. Since the respondent No. 3 was transferred from Nagpur to Raipur on 28.02.2005 on his own request and the applicant joined Raipur division on 04.01.2005, the applicant was senior to Respondent No. 3. The applicant made multiple representations to the respondents that a wrong seniority has been assigned to Respondent No. 3. No action has been taken on his representation and vide letter dated 13.12.2005 the applicant was informed that necessary action has been taken in his matter (Annexure A/6). Respondent No. 3 got further promoted to the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) As per IREM para 312 respondent No. 3 should have been given bottom seniority and the applicant was required to be placed over respondent No. 3 in the list of Assistant Loco Pilot. Since the respondent No. 3 is much junior to the applicant in the initial cadre of Assistant Loco Pilot, the respondent No. 3 has been assigned wrong seniority and therefore, has been placed above the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“8.(ii) Quash and set aside the notification dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure A/1) to the extent it includes the respondent No. 3 in the panel.

8(iii) Further command the respondents to issue a modified posting order including the name of the applicant as notified in the earlier notification dated 06.08.2014 with all consequential benefits arising thereto.”

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein they have submitted that a notification was issued on 30.07.2013 to fill up the vacancies of Loco Inspectors in the Grade of Rs. 9300 – 34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- as under:-

4. The written examination for the said post was conducted on various dates and after examination 33 candidates were found suitable. The copy of the suitability list of the employees has been submitted by the respondents as Annexure (R/2). According to the merit a panel vide No. PRB/1710/2014 dated 07.08.2014 was prepared wherein seven candidates were selected in which the applicant occupied 6^th p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1989

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J, Ms Mallika Arya, AS L Kashyap – AppellantVersusM/o Railways – RespondentO.A./75/2015

Promotion and seniority must be determined based on established rules, even when candidates have equal examination scores.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J, Ms Mallika Arya, A
S L Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
M/o Railways – Respondent
O.A./75/2015