Seniority must be determined by merit achieved during training, adhering to applicable regulations rather than by appointment dates.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Being aggrieved with the impugned Memorandum issued vide EM/1031/1 Asstt. II Vol.V dated 16.10.2014 by DRM (E) Ahmedabad (Annexure-A/1) consequential Order No.EM/839/1/3 (Sr.Asstt.) dated 31.03.2015 for fixing the seniority of the applicants herein, filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 seeking following relief:-

“8.1 To admit this application;

8.2 To quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum issued vide Office Order no. EM/1030/1 Asstt. II Vol.V Dated 16/10/2014 Passed by DRM (E) ADI (Annexure A/3) with consequential order no. EM/839/1/3 (Sr.Asstt.) Dated 31.03.2015 Passed by DRM (E) ADI. (Annex. A/1).

8.3 To direct the respondents to issued the revised seniority accordance with date of appointment.

8.4 To call for the records and proceedings pertaining promotion; to the seniority and

8.5 Any other order thought fit be passed;“

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1 The applicants were appointed on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as “ALP“) in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + G P Rs.1900. The date of appointments of the applicants namely, Shri Madhavraj Chauhan, Shri Manoj Sinh, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Shri Sujitkumar Tiwari, Shri Mukulji Shri Gopal Patel, Shri Jalpesh Patel, Shri Rupesh Charan, Shri Sanjaykumar R. and Shri Dhawal Patel who joined the services on 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, 10.01.2012, 19.12.201, 26.12.2011, 26.12.2011, 10.01.2012, and 31.01.2012 respectively.

Similarly the dates of appointments of the private respondents namely, Vinayak S/o. Rajnikant Shah, Abhinandan Kumar Pathak Sudhir Kumar S/o. Basudev Shah, Rajeshkumar Vishwakarma, Praveen Sagar S/O. Ragvendra Prasad, Rajeshkumar S/o. Balchandra Yadav, Anilkumar Bharti S/o. Shashikant Bharti, Rajan Ranjan and Kalpeshkumar Ramanlal Chavda, who joined the services on 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 21.02.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 02.05.2012, 16.07.2012 and 07.01.2012 respectively.

2.2 Therefore, it is clear from the statement that althought the private respondents are shown senior than the applicants in seniority list published dated on 16.10.2014. Applicants further submitted that in the seniority list dated on 16.10.2014, the applicants were placed at Serial Nos.341, 336 414, 284 317, 377, 346, 314, 287 and 301 respectively, whereas the private respondents were shown at Srl. Nos.12,13,14,15,17,18,19,21,22 and 24. Hence, the applicants were downgraded in the seniority shown above. Due to this illegal actions of the respondents, applicants would further lose the chances of consequential promotions / upgradations for the post of Sr.ALPs.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the above fact, the applicants filed representation on 14.11.2014 requesting the respondent authority to revise the seniority list as per the date of their appointment as mentioned in IREM paras 302 and 303.

2.4 Further, the applicants also contended that respondent No.2 had issued suitability list vide Memorandum No.EM/1026/1/2 (Running) dated 30.03.2015 for the promotion to the post of Sr.ALP in the Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200+GP 2400 (Annexure-A/2). As per the suitability list, the respondents filled up the total 336 posts of senior ALPs wherein 243 posts were kept for Un Reserved; 57 posts for SC and 36 posts for ST.

2.5 Subsequently, the respondent No.2 had issued promotion order vide No.EM/839/1/3/(Sr.Asstt.) dated 31.03.2015 for promotion to the post of Sr.ALPs in Pay Band of Rs.5200-20200+GP of Rs.2400 (Annexure-A/1) wherein respondents had illegally applied reservation policy and promoted in excess the SC/ST c