G. B. Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Special Leave Petition was listed before us on 6th September, 1996 and the same was dismissed but it was indicated that the reasoned order will follow and accordingly this order is being passed.
(2.) The question for consideration is whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, committed any error in dismissing the O. As. filed before it on interpretation of the different circulars issued by the Railways and following the constitution bench decision of this Court in R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, on the question of promotion of a reserved category candidate on the basis of his normal seniority in the cadre from which he is being promoted.
(3.) Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.A. No. 304 of 1992 challenging the promotion of Shri A. S. Rana, respondent No. 6 of the post of D. S. K. - I made on 26-2-1991. The case of the petitioners was that petitioner No. 2 joined the Railways as a Jr. Clerk on 4-12-1956 and was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 1-4-1966. He was promoted to D.S.K.-III on 16-10-1978 and further promoted to D.S.K.II on 24-3-1989. The respondent No. 6 belonging to the reserved category was appointed in the Railway as Jr. Clerk on 30-10-1983 and was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 16-8-1984. He was promoted as D.S.K. III on 26-11-1986. The said respondent No. 6 was promoted earlier to petitioner No. 2 to the cadre of D.S.K;II on 8-10-1987, in view of the post available in the cadre of D.S.K.-II for the reserve category people. When the question of promotion to the cadre of D.S.K.-I came up for consideration against the vacancies meant for general category said respondent No. 6 Shri Rana was promoted on 26-2-1991 on the basis of his accelerated seniority, he having taken advantage of accelerated promotion being a member of the reserved category. The petitioner No. 2 filed a representation before the authorities making the grievance that respondent No. 6 could not have been promoted to a post meant for general category and the authorities illegally promoted him, but not being successful therein, challenged the promotion of respondent No. 6 before the Tribunal. The railway administration filed their counter affidavit before the Tribunal taking several technical objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings at the behest of the association. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it was contended that no doubt respondent No. 6 had been promoted to the cadre of D. S. K.- III and D. S. K.- II against the reserved vacancy following the roster but so far as promotion to the cadre of D. S. K. - I is concerned he was considered against a vacant post in the general category on the basis of his normal seniority and ultimately he has been promoted in accordance with the circulars issued by the railway administration and in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Sabharwal's case (supra). The Tribunal following the decisions of this Court in Sabharwal's case as well as Virpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra), rejected the application on the conclusion that the alleged promotion of respondent No. 6 was much prior to the decision of this Court in Sabharwal's case in the year 1995 and promotion already made cannot be interfered.;