AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J): Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
The applicants are aggrieved by the notification dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for formation of a panel for the post of Commerciall-Cum-Ticket
Supervisor (in short ‘CCTS’), Level-6, against the 10% quota under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short ‘LDCE’) in the Commercial Department of Nagpur Division.
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:
“8.i Call for the service record of the applicants and also call for the record of vacancies to the post of Chief Commercial Cum Ticket Supervisor under DPC to Direct promotion Quota.
8.ii On perusal of the entire record kindly direct the respondents to issue Notification for filling Vacancies under 75% Quota for the post of CCTS immediately in order to avoid litigation and complete the process of promotion first and thereafter selection against 10% LDCE Quota be taken to hand in accordance with the seniority rules.
8.iii After considering the propriety, legality and constitutional validity of the Rules Prevailing and provisions Governing Inter se seniority amongst the 75% Direct promotion Quota, 15% Direct Recruitment and 10% LDCE Quota direction be issued to prepare the seniority list of post Chief Cum Ticket Supervisor in accordance to the provision of law in the interest of justice.
8.iv Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in the interest of justice.”
This matter came up on 20.02.2026 and this Tribunal passed the following order:-
“The applicants, before this Tribunal, are challenging the impugned Notification dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) by which the respondents have proposed to conduct a Computer Based Test (CBT) selection to the post of Commercial-cum-TicketSupervisor in Pay Matrix Level-6 (Grade pay of Rs.4200) against 10% LDCE quota in Commercial department on Nagpur Division.
2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the aforesaid post is to be filled in by 75% promotion quota, 15% by direct recruitment and 10% by LDCE quota. It is submitted that without filling up the vacancies under 75% quota first, issuance of impugned Notification dated 31.10.2025 is prejudiced the right of the applicants so far as seniority and promotion are concerned.
3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that in other divisions, the Railway is recruiting/promoting the persons Central Administrative Tribunalfalling within 75% quota first and thereafter the process of 10% LDCE takes place. Under these circumstances, impugned Notification is bad in law.
4.After issuance of notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and it is stated that there were no vacancies in the CCTS Cadre, ML-6 under 75% PQ/Selection quota in the line of assessment at the relevant time of issuing impugned Notification dated 31.10.2025 and at the subsequent stage in chart, in remark column, it has been mentioned that there are excess employees working in 75% quota whereas there are vacancies of 15% direct recruitment and 66 vacancies in 10% LDCE.
5.However, there is no mention in respect of the exact strength position and vacancy position.
6.Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to clarify the position in respect of statement made in para Nos. 5 & 6 of the reply on the next date of hearing. The respondents are further directed to produce the complete data.
7.List the matter on 12.03.2026 at Nagpur Bench.”
Thereafter on 27.03.2026, the following order had been passed:
“We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.
2.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, as per rules, is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Commercial-cum--Ticket-Supervisor, under Pay Level-6 under direct promotion quota (DPQ). She submits that the promotional channel is of three types, i.e., 75% DPQ, 15% direct recruitment quota and 10% LDCE quota. The respondents intend to first fill in the LDCE quota of 10%. The applicant contends that 75% DPQ should be filled in first otherwise that will affect the seniority of the applicants.
3.The respondents contend that there is no vacancy in DPQ. The applicant has filed reply, affidavit today stating there are vacancies available under direct promotion quota and the respondents have misled the Tribunal.
Central Administrative Tribunal4. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply to the affidavit filed by the applicant.
5.Stand over to April 2026, Circuit Bench sitting at Nagpur.”
The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the post of CCTS is to be filled 75% through promotion quota, 15% through Direct Recruitment and 10% through LDCE quota and since seniority on promotion is determined from the date of joining on the post, vacancies under the promotion quota should be filled first, meaning thereby that promotion quota should be filled before LDCE quota, and direct recruitment quota. In support of above contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provident Fund Commissioner And Another Vs N. Ravindran And Others, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 654.
Further, learned counsel for applicants has also contended that the other Divisions have taken out impugned notification to fill the vacancies in CCTS by promotion quota first before filling LDCE quota vacancies.
Per contra, the respondents have pleaded that there are no vacancies in CCTS cadre to be filled through promotion quota. In support of the same, a chart has been placed on record to show that 46 numbers of excess employees are working against the 75% promotion/selection quota which is reproduced below:
| GP/Matrix Level | Mode of Appointment | Sanctioned Strength |
| 4200/6 | 75% Selection | 421 |
| 15% DR | 84 | |
| 10% LDCE | 56 | |
| Total | 561 |
The respondents have further pleaded that the detailed position of the employees working in CCTS cadre of Nagpur Division, as on date along with name, designation, working station and date of promotion among 75% Promotion/Selection Quota and 15% of Direct Recruitment Quota is evident from Annexure R/2.
The respondents have further submitted that the cadre of CCTS came into existence pursuant to the merger of the erstwhile Ticket Checking Staff, Commercial Clerks (CC) and Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks (ECRC). The modalities governing such merger, including the manner of dealing with the existing employees and the future cadre structure, have been duly prescribed by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure ‘A’).
The respondents have also pleaded that each Railway Division is required to undertake an independent assessment of the sanctioned strength and actual vacancies available under the respective prescribed channels, namely, 75% Promotion/Selection Quota, 15% Direct Recruitment Quota and 10% LDCE Quota, and to initiate the recruitment/promotion process accordingly. Therefore, merely because a particular Division or Zone has issued a notification for filling up vacancies under a particular quota before or after another quota does not confer any right upon the applicants to insist upon adoption of the same procedure in Nagpur Division. The vacancy position is Division-specific and depends upon the cadre strength and incumbency position prevailing in the concerned Division.
the learned counsel for the respondents has thus argued that the applicants have made a general and unsubstantiated assertion that approximately 600 posts ought to have been reckoned under the 75% Promotion/Selection Quota. However, no supporting material, vacancy statement, sanctioned-strength position or any provision of the applicable rules has been produced by the applicants to substantiate such assertion. According to the respondents, the applicants cannot merely rely upon an estimated figure to contend that vacancies existed under the 75% quota.Central Administrative Tribunal
The learned counsel has reiterated that the notifications issued by different Railway Divisions are based upon their respective cadre position and the vacancies assessed under each quota. Such notifications, therefore, cannot be treated as a precedent for determining the vacancy position or the appropriate mode of filling up posts in another Division. He has also submitted that the impugned notification dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) has been issued after undertaking the requisite assessment of vacancies under the relevant quota and cannot, therefore, be characterised as an infringement of any vested right of the applicants.
Lastly, the learned counsel has submitted that the applicants, subject to fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions, are not excluded from the selection process pursuant to the impugned
notification. They are at liberty to participate in the LDCE and compete with other eligible candidates. Consequently, the mere issuance of the notification for filling up the posts under the 10% LDCE quota does not, by itself, result in deprivation of any legally enforceable right of the applicants.
Having noted the submissions of the respective parties, we observe that the principal issue which falls for our consideration in the instant case is whether, in the facts and circumstances of theCentral Administrative Tribunal present case, the respondents were justified in proceeding to fill up the vacancies under the 10% LDCE quota for the post of CCTS, Pay Matrix Level-6, without first filling the posts under the 75% Promotion/Selection Quota (PQ), and whether such action is liable to be interfered with on the ground that it would adversely affect the seniority and promotional prospects of the applicants.
It is not in dispute that the post of CCTS in Level--6 is required to be filled from different sources, namely, 75% by promotion/selection, 15% by direct recruitment and 10% through LDCE. The prescription of separate quotas, however, does not by itself establish that the vacancies earmarked for one source must invariably be filled before the vacancies earmarked for another source. The consequence of a quota prescription, as also the manner
in which seniority is to be regulated, would depend upon the applicable Recruitment Rules, the Railway Board instructions governing the cadre and the actual availability of vacancies in each prescribed quota.
The applicants have principally relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Ravindran (supra). In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a situation where 75% of the promotional vacancies were required to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 25% through a prescribed examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the view that the two categories constituted a single class of promotees and that the persons promoted through the examination could not ordinarily be placed above those who were entitled to promotion in the normal course on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The ratio of N. Ravindran (supra) undoubtedly recognises the importance of protecting the legitimate seniority of employees who are otherwise entitled to promotion under the normal promotional channel. However, the said decision cannot be read as laying down an inflexible proposition that, wherever the Rule provides for more than one channel of promotion, vacancies under the normal promotion quota must invariably be filled before vacancies
earmarked for an LDCE quota, irrespective of the actual vacancy position in the respective quotas. In N. Ravindran(supra), the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court arose in the context of two categories of promotees and the consequential fixation of their inter se seniority. The decision does not dispense with the requirement of establishing the existence of a vacancy in the relevant promotional quota before a direction for promotion can be issued.
The controlling consideration in the present case is not the mere existence of a 75:15:10 distribution, but whether, on the basis of the applicable cadre structure and the sanctioned strength, an actual vacancy was available against the 75% PQ quota on the relevant date. In the present case, the respondents initially placed before us a chart showing the sanctioned strength of CCTS at Level-6 as 421 against the 75% Promotion/Selection quota, with 467 persons shown against the said quota and, consequently, 46 persons in excess. In the subsequent affidavit dated 06.04.2026, the respondents have furnished a more detailed cadre-wise calculation based upon the merger of the Ticket Checking Staff, Commercial Clerks and Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks and the distribution prescribed pursuant to Railway Board instructions. In the said statement also, the respondents have also shown that against the
sanctioned strength of 421 posts earmarked for CCTS Promotion/Selection, 478 employees were working, resulting in 57 excess employees, while 56 posts were shown vacant under the 10% LDCE quota.
The applicants have seriously disputed the aforesaid calculation. Their contention is that the persons included by the respondents in the combined strength of the promotion quota are not actually working as CCTS and belong to the erstwhile separate seniority groups of Ticket Checking Staff, Commercial Clerks and ECRC. According to the applicants, the Railway Board's letter dated 28.06.2023 specifically directed that the three seniority groups be maintained separately for existing employees and that merger into a common seniority and common functionality would operate only for future intake. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents could not have clubbed the incumbents of the three erstwhile groups for the purpose of showing an excess against the 75% CCTS promotion quota.
The respondents, on the other hand, have explained that the merger of the three streams resulted in a unified cadre and that the separate seniority of the existing employees is to be maintained only
for the purpose of promotion within their respective existing seniority groups. According to them, the sanctioned strength of the Commercial Department was thereafter distributed among the various categories and levels in accordance with the percentage prescribed by the Railway Board. On that basis, they have calculated the sanctioned strength, man-on-roll and vacancies separately for each category and have consistently maintained that there is no vacancy available under the 75% CCTS promotion quota.
The applicants have also relied upon the RTI information according to which only 18 persons were shown as working as CCTS, whereas the respondents' chart showed a substantially larger number of persons against the CCTS promotion quota. However, the respondents have explained that the figure of 18 relates to persons occupying the CCTS posts through the direct recruitment quota and that the larger figure reflected in their vacancy chart pertains to the broader merged cadre and its distribution amongst the prescribed categories and modes of appointment. In the interim order dated 27.03.2026, the dispute regarding the vacancy position was specifically noticed, and the respondents were afforded an opportunity to explain the basis of their calculation.
We find that the respondents have placed on record a consistent explanation of the manner in which the sanctioned strength of the merged cadre has been distributed among the various categories and sources of recruitment. The applicants, despite disputing the methodology adopted by the respondents, have not placed before us any cogent material, sanctioned-strength statement or cadre-wise calculation which conclusively demonstrates the existence of an actual vacancy under the 75% PQ quota as on the relevant date. A mere assertion that persons working in the erstwhile cadres cannot be counted against the promotion quota is not sufficient to establish that a corresponding vacancy exists in the CCTS promotion quota.
The applicants' reliance upon the Railway Board letter dated 28.06.2023 also does not advance their case to the extent asserted. The said instruction, as noticed during the course of hearing, provides for maintenance of the three seniority groups separately for existing employees and contemplates common seniority and common functionality for future intake. It cannot, in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, be construed as creating an additional vacancy in the 75% promotion quota or as requiring the respondents to first fill such quota before utilising the vacancies specifically available under the 10% LDCE quota.
It is also significant that the applicants' grievance is founded primarily on a possible future effect upon their seniority. The applicants do not have an indefeasible right to promotion merely because they are eligible for consideration. It is well settled that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, but promotion can be claimed only against an available vacancy and in accordance with the prescribed quota and procedure. Therefore, unless the existence of a vacancy under the 75% PQ quota is first established, no positive direction can be issued requiring the respondents to fill such quota before proceeding with the LDCE quota.
The principle enunciated in N. Ravindran (supra) would undoubtedly become relevant if it is ultimately found that vacancies actually existed under the normal promotion quota and that the respondents, despite availability of such vacancies, deliberately proceeded to promote candidates through the LDCE channel in a manner which disturbed the seniority of employees entitled to normal promotion. However, the foundational fact necessary for applying that principle, namely, the existence of vacancies under the 75% Promotion Quota quota has not been established by the applicants in the present proceedings. On the contrary, the material placed by the respondents consistently indicates excess deployment against the Promotion Quota component and availability of vacancies under the 10% LDCE component.
In the present case, the respondents have not abandoned the prescribed quota; rather, they have proceeded on the basis that the vacancy available for filling is under the 10% LDCE component, whereas the 75% component is already overstaffed.
We may also observe that the Court exercising judicial review in service matters cannot substitute its own assessment of cadre strength or vacancy position for that of the competent administrative authority unless the determination is shown to be demonstrably arbitrary, irrational, contrary to the governing rules or based on no material. In the present case, the respondents have furnished the basis of their calculation and have supported the same by reference to the Railway Board instructions governing the merger and distribution of the cadre. The applicants have been unable to demonstrate any patent mathematical or legal error of such magnitude as would warrant setting aside the impugned notification at this stage.
The contention of the applicants that other Railway Divisions have first filled vacancies under the 75% PQ quota also cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for invalidating the impugned notification. Vacancy position is necessarily dependent upon the sanctioned strength, existing incumbency, cadre structure and the relevant seniority position of the particular Division. An administrative practice followed in another Division cannot create a legal right in favour of the applicants contrary to the cadre position applicable to Nagpur Division. Moreover, the overstaffing under 75% quota is not under challenge in the instant OA.
On an overall consideration of the matter, we find that the applicants have failed to establish that, as on the date of issuance of the impugned Notification dated 31.10.2025, vacancies under the 75% Promotion/Selection quota for the post in question were available which were required to be filled before initiating the process under the 10% LDCE quota. The respondents have furnished a plausible and consistent basis for their determination that the Promotion Quota component was overmanned and that vacancies were available under the LDCE component. Consequently, the challenge to the impugned notification cannot succeed merely on the basis of an apprehension that the applicants' future seniority may be adversely affected.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the instant case and the same is dismissed accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.