Court affirmed that service prior to inter-divisional transfer counts for eligibility, but not for seniority in promotion considerations.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

All the applicants were appointed in the Chennai Division of Southern Railway during the period 2016-2017 as Assistants in Carriage and Wagon (C&W) Wing of Southern Railway. While so, they were transferred on request of the applicants to Palakkad and on transfer they joined Palakkad Division during various dates in May, 2022. While so, Annexure A1 notification dated 31.8.2022 for selection to the post of Technician-II in C&W against 25% LDCE quota was issued. The concerned Rule governing the skilled Artisan including the applicants was Rule 159 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), a copy of which was produced as Annexure A3. The service condition prescribed in Annexure A1 was that the applicant should have rendered minimum 2 years of service as Assistant in C&W, as on the date of notification. This was corresponding to RBE 3 of 2019, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A4. The applicants claiming that they have satisfied the service condition responded to the notification. However, their applications were rejected by Annexure A2 by referring to RBE 34 of 2006. The said RBE, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A5 prescribed that “while persons who seek transfer on request basis will continue to be assigned bottom seniority in new unit/cadre as per extant procedure, the service rendered by them in the old unit may be reckoned for determining their eligibility wherever a minimum length of service is prescribed as a condition for promotion including promotion to General posts in the new unit, subject to the condition that the service so allowed to be counted does not exceed the length of service of their immediate senior in the new unit”. Hence, Annexure A2 mentioned that the applicants who were transferred on inter-division transfer and placed junior to one Shri Vivek Ravindran as per the seniority are not eligible for selection as per RBE 34 of 2006. According to the applicants, Annexure A5 was set aside as ultra vires by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order in Raghubir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (OA No. 1755 of 2009). Though a copy of the said was not produced, the said order was referred to in Annexure A6 order of the Jabalpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Rajesh Kumar Patidar v. Union of India & Anr. (OA No. 774/2016).

2. Claiming that the examination was fixed on 6.12.2022 and that the applicants are entitled to be included in the list and contending that their applications were wrongly rejected, the applicants have approached this Tribunal. It was stated that Annexure A1 and the consequent rejection of the applicants’ candidature by Annexure A2 are totally arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and hence violative of Constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16. It was further stated that Annexure A5 has already been set aside by a competitive court of jurisdiction and hence Annexure A4 was nonest, inoperative and therefore, denial of consideration of applicants for promotion through LDCE relying upon a non-existent order also, was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Accordingly, they sought for quashing of paragraph 1(d) of Annexure A1 and to quash Annexure A2 to the extent it denied the applicants’ candidature for promotion to the post of Technicians against the vacancies notified in Annexure A1.

3. After the OA was admitted, an interim order was passed by this Tribunal on 6.12.2022 notin