AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER:KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A):
Instant OA has been filed by the applicants UnderSection 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
8.1.To quash/set aside the Notification as contained in Annexures-2, 4 and 5. Or In the alternative To direct the respondent-authorities to modify the notifications making provisions therein so that the applicants may submit applications for selection test for the post of Goods Guard, Office.
It is noticed that the applicants (27 in numbers) have sought permission to jointly pursue the present Original Application. having regard to the fact that the applicants claim a common cause of action and raise a common issue arising out of same notifications, such joint prosecution is permissible under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the applicants are permitted to jointly pursue the present Original Application.
The brief facts of the case, as per the OA. are discussed and delineated as follows :
The present Original Application has been filed by 27 Class IV/Group 'D' employees of Railways. They were appointed through Railway Recruitment Board/Recruitment Cell in between 2008 and 2013 on the post of Trackman. The grievance of the applicants is that they were not allowed to participate in the selection processes which was issued vide notification dated 11.08.2017, 20.09.2017 and 30.09.2017 for the posts of Goods Guard, Office Clerk Grade-II and Station Master as the notification was confined to specified category. As per pleading, there was no avenue of regular promotion in their cadre. It has been further stated that as per Paragraph 189 of IREM Volume-I, 1988 they are entitled for promotion to Group 'C' posts against the prescribed LDCE/PRQ quota. Paragraph 189 of IREM Volume -I, 1988 is reproduced as under:
"189- Promotion to higher Grades in Group 'C'
(a)Railway servants in Group 'D' categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists 33.1% of the vacancies in the lowest Grade of Commercial Clerks, Ticket Collector, Train Clerks, Number Takers, Time Keepers, Fuel Checkers etc., should be earmarked for promotion."
The first notifications was issued vide letter dated 11.08.2017 by the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad inviting applications from the Group 'C' employees working in operating, Commercial and Coal Commercial Department with PB Rs. 5200-20200/- + GP 1800, for formation of panel for 131 posts of Goods Guard in PB Rs.5200-20200/- + GP Rs. 2800 against which applicants had represented vide a joint representation dated 07.09.2017 but yielded no response.
Thereafter, vide another notification dated 20.09.2017 applications were invited from Group 'D' employees for formation of Panel of Office Clerk Grade -II in Scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- + GP 1900/- from Class IV in Scale Rs. 5200-20200/- + GP Rs. 1800 against 16 2/3% LDCE quota for total 41 posts (UR-33 SC-04, ST-04) and vide subsequent notification dated 30.10.2017 applications were invited for formation of panel of unified cadre of S.M numbering 117 (UR-94, SC-14, ST-09) against 25% PRQ quota in Scale Rs. 9300-34800/- + GP Rs. 4200/- from (i) Shunter, Sr. TNC & Cabin Master in PB Rs. 5200-20200/- + GP Rs. 2400/- and (ii) Leverman Grade-I, Shuntman Grade-I in PB Rs. 5200-20200/-+ GP Rs. 1900/- have been invited but in all notifications Group 'D' employees working in the engineering Department have been excluded. Again, the applicants had submitted a joint representation dated 06.11.2017 for modification in the notification so that they could become eligible but again yielded no response hence the O.A.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that since there is no avenue of promotion in the cadre of Trackman and if they are not allowed to appear in the selection test for promotion to Group 'C' posts they would have to work on the same post till their retirement. He further submitted that as they have no avenue of regular promotion, they may be permitted to participate in the selection process notified by the Sr. DPO, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad so that they may avail the opportunity of promotionin Group 'C' post in other Departments against LDCE/PRQ quota earmarked for them.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that applicants were appointed as Trackman in Pay Scale Rs. 5200-20200/-+ GP 1800 through RRC and posted in Engineering Department of Railway under jurisdiction of Dhanbad Division. The applicants have filed this OA against the notification dated 11.08.2017, 20.09.2017 and 30.10.2017 seeking relief for modification in the notifications so that they may submit their application for the said posts. It has been further stated that since the Railway Board vide its letter dated 17.08.2012 (RBE No. 91/2012) restructured the post of Trackman and the erstwhile Trackman has been re-designated as Trackman IV, III, II & I with promotional avenue in GP Rs. 1800/-in level -I, Rs. 1900/-- in Level -2, Rs. 2400/- in Level-4 and Rs. 2800/- in level -5 for the Engineering Department so Trackman cannot be allowed as eligible candidate for the Goods Guard, Office Clerk Grade-II and Station Master Categories. Hence the OA praying for quashing the notification dated 11.08.2017, 20.09.2017 and 30.11.2017 is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the parties, perused the materials available on records and considered the submissions. We have considered the matter in its entirety and arrived at the following conclusion:
The provision relied upon by the applicants is applicable to Group 'D' categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists. In the present case, the respondents have specifically demonstrated that, after restructuring of the Trackman cadre pursuant to the Railway Board's letter dated 17.08.2012, promotional avenues were available to the applicants within their own department. Eligibility for a particular promotional selection is governed by the applicable recruitment rules and the quota prescribed for the concerned post.
The primary legal pillar of the applicants’ case is Paragraph 189 of IREM Volume-I, 1988. However, a plain reading of the text reveals that its application is strictly conditional, operating only for "Railway servants in Group 'D' categories for whom no regular avenue of promotion exists".
The respondents have conclusively established that following the implementation of the Railway Board's restructuring order dated 17.08.2012 (RBE No. 91/2012); a systematic, multi-tiered promotional channel was established for Trackmen. The applicants themselves are currently designated as Trackman-III and Trackman-IV, which directly indicates they are beneficiaries of this structural ladder.
It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that eligibility criteria, departmental quotas, and the feeder categories for promotional posts are policy decisions governed by specific Recruitment Rules. Since the applicants possess an independent, dedicated line of promotion within the Engineering Department, allowing them to compete for vacancies earmarked for operating, commercial, or clerical departments would compromise the promotional stakes and statutory rights of the employees belonging to those specific departments.
Therefore, the restriction of the impugned selection processes to specified categories excluding Trackmen cannot be termed arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicants have failed to point out any legal, constitutional, or statutory infirmity in the notifications issued by the Sr. DPO, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of judgments, including Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC Online SC 1768), has reaffirmed that while an employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, there is no vested or absolute right to a specific post, channel of promotion, or lateral en-cadrement outside the prescribed rules. The prescription of feeder categories and departmental quotas is a matter of administrative policy.
In Union of India v. Pushpa Rani & Others (2008) 9 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India extensively dealt with the creation, restructuring, and amalgamation of cadres in the Indian Railways. The Apex Court ruled that the prescription of recruitment sources, promotional channels, and the framing of eligibility criteria fall squarely within the domain of the executive/employer.Judicial review can only be invoked if the policy is shown to be flagrantly arbitrary or malicious. In the present case, the creation of an independent hierarchy for Trackmen via RBE No. 91/2012 removes any dynamic of stagnation or arbitrariness.
In view of the above discussion, the applicant fails to establish that the notifications issued by the Sr. DPO, ECR, Dhanbad are contrary to any rule/law/circular. Therefore, there is no reason to warrant any interference with the decision of the Respondents.
Accordingly, the instant O.A. is dismissed as devoid of merit dismissed.There will be no order as to cost in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above.