Promotion decisions must adhere to both seniority and applicable reservation policies.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

The applicant has preferred this OA praying for direction against the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion on the cadre of Senior Black Smith (BS) w.e.f. 01.12.2013.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was initially appointed on the post of Black Smith- III with the respondent department. As per seniority list of Black Smith dated 19.12.2013, his name figures at serial no.2, after Harish Chandra Prathvi Ram. Vide RBE 102/2013 restructuring of certain Group ‘C’ in the Ministry of Railways took place. Pursuant to which cadre of C&W Mechanical Department and Vehicle Driver as on 01.11.2013 were revised resulting in arising of one additional post of Black Smith in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- in C&W Department w.e.f. 01.11.2013.

2.2 It is the grievance of the applicant that the respondents filled up that post by promoting his junior Bahadur Singh, whereas the applicant was required to be promoted to that post. Aggrieved with the above, he submitted representation on 23.06.2015 (Annexure-A/4). But the respondents did not give any satisfactory reply to the applicant. Terming the action of the respondents in not giving promotion as arbitrary, illegal and against the mandate of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has prayed to allow the OA by directing the respondents to consider his candidature for promotion.

3. In reply, the respondents averred that before implementation of the cadre restructuring w.e.f. 01.11.2013, the cadre of Senior Black Smith grade pay of Rs.4200/- in C&W Department was 8% i.e one post, and after restructuring this cadre became 16% i.e. two posts. Thus, on account of restructuring, one additional post of Black Smith-I in grade pay of Rs.4200/- was required to be filled up as per promotion norms. As per RBE No.102/2013 provision of reservation policy was made applicable under cadre restructuring. In this regard, para 9 of RBE No.102/2013 has been referred to. It is further averred that one additional post of Black Smith grade pay of Rs.4200/- falls at roster point No.4 and the same is reserved for SC community. In this regard, recruitment roster (Annexure-R/2) has been filed.

3.1 It is the reply to the OA that the applicant belongs to the General community therefore, could not be considered for promotion. The candidate belonging to SC community, Mr. Bahadur Singh, who is junior to the applicant was considered and promoted to the said post. Promotion was given as per roster point. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.

4. Applicant in rejoinder while reiterating his stand taken in the OA submits that Bahadur Singh did not have the requisite qualification to be promoted on the post in question. Ignoring the claim of the applicant is illegal. The post of Black Smith-I could not be filled up by the SC community.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the additional post of Black Smith-I came into existence before the retirement of the applicant on 30.04.2015. Since, the applicant is senior to Bahadur Singh, the respondents have committed error in promoting him ignoring the provision of para 4.4 of the RBE No.102/2013, which says that all vacancies arising purely due to this cadre restructuring should be filled up by senior employees who should be given benefit of the promotion w.e.f 01.11.2013.

6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that para 4.7 of the RBE No.102/2013 says that the employees who retire/resign or expire in between the period from the date of effect of thes