CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 13^th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

G.P. Ganesan, S/o Pappu, 29 C, Sri Venkateswara Nagar, Lakshmipuram, chennai. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. R. Pandian Vs

1. Union of India rep by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai.

2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai.

3. The Senior Manager (Printing & Stationery)

Southern Railway, Royapuram, Chennai.

4. K. Venkatesalu, E.No.1456, Senior Technician/Printing Press, Southern Railway, Royapuram, Chennai .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. S. Krishnaswamy for R.1 to 3 M/s. D. Meenakshi Sundaram for R.4

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To revise the impugned, select/panel issued by the rd

3 respondent vide dated 06.08.2013, duly interpolating the applicant against the post of Senior Technician by applying the rule of reservation.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The Applicant is currently employed as a Technician Grade-I (Binder) in the pay band of Rs.5200–20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs.2800, under the administrative control of the 3rd Respondent. The Applicant is fully eligible to be placed in the select list/panel for promotion to the post of Senior Technician in the pay band of Rs.9300–34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4200, in accordance with the rule of reservation as set out in Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 114/97, dated 21.08.1997. However, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents have erroneously applied the provisions of the cited Railway Board circular and have deliberately manipulated the rule of reservation to favour a particular employee, Shri S. Vengaimuth, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. He was promoted to the post of Senior Technician by misusing the 8th point in the first rotation, which was originally reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, thereby bypassing ten eligible employees. This irregular promotion has adversely impacted the rightful placement of the Applicant, who should have been included in the select list/panel issued by the 3rd Respondent through their letter dated 06.08.2013. According to the rule of reservation, the 8th point in the third rotation should have been allotted to the Applicant. Since this was not duly considered, the Applicant is compelled to approach this Tribunal through the present Original Application, seeking appropriate relief and justice.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the Railway Board, in its letter No. 95-E(SCT)1/49/5(2) dated 21-08-1997 (marked as A1), outlined the procedure for applying reservation rules in promotions. He highlighted that different types of rosters are to be used depending on the strength of employees in the relevant category. Specifically, when the number of posts is up to 14, a particular type of roster commonly referred to as the ‘L-shaped roster’ is applicable. In the present case, the cadre strength for the post of Senior Technicians was 13 as of 31-10-2013. Accordingly, the ‘L-shaped roster’ was applied, though allegedly in violation of the prescribed reservation norms.

4. He drew our attention to the requirement of applying reservation in cases where the number of posts is up to 14, for which the 'L-shaped roster as detailed in Annexure A-1 must be followed. This roster consists of two intersecting rows: one vertical and one horizontal, each designating the reservation quotas for Unreserved (UR), Scheduled Caste (SC), and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories. The vertical row represents the initial appointments made to the post, while the horizontal row governs how vacancies are to be filled when those originally appointed leave the post. Crucially, when a replacement is to be made, it must follow the reservation point indicated in the horizontal