Eligibility for promotion must adhere to notified criteria, including age limits, which cannot be retrospectively applied post-selection.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-

Learned counsel for both the parties are present and heard.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , praying for the following relief(s):-

“(i) Quash the impugned orders dated 22.10.2014 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure A-1 to Compilation No.I)

(ii) Direct the respondents to promote the applicants on the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3050-4590 under which they have got successful in all respect before cancellation of the selection of 2005 being channel of promotion without applying the criteria of age bar.

(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pay of the applicant and fixed the pension of the applicants according to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 and to make the payment of pay and differences of differences of arrear of pension from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment is being made applicants with all consequential benefits including the interest @ 18% per annum.

(iv) Grant such other relief as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow the original application with cost of the the proceeding in favour of the applicant from the respondents.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicants are employees of the respondent Railways working as Cleaners and belong to the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) in the pay scale of Rs. 3050–4590. The Railway Board, vide letter dated 16.07.1991, prescribed the mode of filling up the posts of Diesel Assistant/Assistant Loco Pilot, providing for promotion from Fireman categories and, in case of shortfall, from matriculate Cleaners having five years’ continuous service. It is an admitted position that prior to issuance of the aforesaid Railway Board letter, the posts of First Fireman and Second Fireman had been abolished and, consequently, Cleaners remained the effective feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. In accordance with the prevailing rules and instructions, the respondents issued a notification dated 02.03.2005 for filling up the posts of Assistant Loco Pilot through a departmental selection. The applicants, being eligible, participated in the written examination held on 09.07.2005 pursuant to a letter dated 10.06.2005 and were declared successful. Vide letter dated 08.08.2005, the applicants were declared eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and their names appeared at Serial Nos. 16 and 40 in the list of successful candidates. Thereafter, the applicants appeared in the psycho test conducted on 13.09.2005 and were declared to have passed the same; however, the final result of the selection was not declared. Subsequently, the respondents cancelled the entire selection process vide order dated 18.01.2006, without assigning any reason, which was communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 02.02.2007. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the selection, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 301 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2010, whereby the cancellation was quashed and the respondents were directed to analyze the result of the examination and consider the successful candidates for promotion, subject to fulfillment of other conditions. Despite the aforesaid order, the applicants were not granted promotion. The respondents sought to deny promotion by applying the age limit prescribed under Railway Board Circular dated 02.12.2005, applicable