B.S. Raikote, Vice-Chairman (J) - (1.) THESE two applications were heard along with the batch of cases involving a controversy relating to the principles for determining the seniority of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates promoted earlier on roster principles vis-a-vis general category candidates promoted later. THESE two cases we are disposing of by a separate common judgment, so as to appreciate with the help of the facts of these cases, the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in number of judgments, so that judgments in these two cases could be followed in the remaining cases in the batch.
(2.) In both the applications, the applicants have sought amendment of the seniority list dated 16.04.1999 of the cadre of Train Conductors (for short, TNCR) and Travelling Ticket Examiner (for short, TTI) in the pay scale at Rs. 1600-2660 (revised to Rs. 5500-9000), keeping in view of the base grade seniority. They have also challenged Annexure A/2, by which their representations were rejected by the department. They have also sought quashing of the eligibility list dated 7.7.99 (Annexure A/3) prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of CTI in the pay scale at Rs. 2000-3200 (revised to Rs. 6500-10500) of the persons belonging to the cadre of TNCR/TTI with the pay scale at Rs. 1600-2660. The whole grievance of the applicants, who belong to the general category, is that certain persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities (in short, reserved category) though junior to the applicants at the base level, are now sought to be promoted to the post of CTI, without revising the seniority list at Annexure A/1 on the basis of the catching up principle enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In order to appreciate the contentions, we think it appropriate to refer to the pleadings and documents in OA No. 387/99 and the pleadings and documents as annexed by the official respondents to avoid any repetition and confusion in the matter. It is the case of the applicants that the post of Ticket Collector is the base grade, and in that base grade, they are seniors to the private respondents, who belong to reserved category. They have annexed seniority list of that base grade at Annexure A/10 dated 10.11.76, and a further revised seniority list vide Annexure A/11 dated 20.12.82. They contended that as per this seniority list of the Ticket Collector, they were seniors to the private respondents, who belonged to the reserved category. They have also contended that on the basis of seniority cum suitability, they were next promoted to the post of Senior T.C. in the pay scale at Rs. 1200-2040. They have also filed seniority list of Senior T.C. cadre vide Annexure A/12 dated 16.7.87, and contended that the applicants were senior to the private respondents. From the post of Senior TC/Senior TTC, the next promotion is to the post of Head TC/Train Conductor/Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (hereinafter referred to as HTTE) with the pay scale at Rs. 1400-2300, and the normal mode of promotion to this post of HTTE is by selection. But the private respondents were selected to this cadre by modified selection procedure and they were promoted to the roster point basis as against the applicants, who are senior to them in the base grade. The next promotional post from HTTE is to the post of TNCR/TTI in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 on seniority-cum-suitability basis. To this post, the applicants and the respondents were promoted simultaneously with effect from 1.3.93 vide order dated 23.7.93 (Annexure R/7) on the basis of restructuring/upgradation. As a result, the applicants have caught up with the private respondents. Since the applicants have caught up with the private respondents, who were earlier promoted on the basis of accelerated promotion, the seniority of the applicants vis-a-vis the private respondents requires to be revised on the basis of the applicants' seniority at the base level, and on the basis of such revised seniority list, the case for further promotion to the next cadre of CTI requires to be considered. But without undertaking such exercise, the official respondents have now prepared the eligibility list vide Annexure A/ 3 for the purpose of promotion to the next higher cadre, i.e. to the cadre of CTI, in the pay scale at Rs. 2000-3200, and on that basis, the private respondents are sought to be promoted by preparing the panel. But such action of the respondents is contrary to the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Shri P.V. Kalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and similarly placed general category candidates advancing leading arguments relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1189, Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3479, R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 SCC (L&S) 548= 1995(3) SLJ 227 (SC) and Union ofIndiav. Virpal Singh Chouhan, AIR 1996 SC 448=1996(1) SLJ 65 (SC). These judgments and other judgments, we will be referring to in the course of this order.
(3.) BY filing reply, the official respondent Nos. 1,2,3 & 4 have denied the case of the applicants. The private respondent Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14, have filed separate replies, denying the case of the applicants. In substance, the contention of the private respondents and the official respondents is the same. The case of the respondents is that the applicants no doubt, were seniors to the private respondents upto the cadre of Senior TC/ Senior TTE in the pay scale at Rs. 1200-2040, but the private respondents were promoted by modified selection procedure to the post of HTTE in the pay scale at Rs, 1400-2300 earlier to the applicants vide Annexure R/5 dated 20.6.86. At that time, the applicants were not promoted to the said post of HTTE. But the applicants were promoted to the said post of HTTE later on vide Annexure R/6 dated 22.8.88. Thus, the applicants being promoted subsequent to the private respondents to the post of HTTE, they have become junior to the private respondents. They further contended that vide Annexure R/5, promotion was made to the post of HTTE on the basis of merits, but not on the basis of roster point. Therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court do not apply to the facts of the case. They further contended that in subsequent promotion to the post of TNCR/TTI in the pay scale at Rs. 1600-2660, the applicants and the private respondents were no doubt, simultaneously promoted, but in the promotion order vide Annexure R/7 dated 23.7.93, the private respondents have been shown at higher ranking than the applicants. They also contended that accordingly, a seniority list for the post of TNCR/TTI at Rs. 1600-2660 was prepared, vide Annexure R/l dated 23.04.97. In the said seniority list, in the cadre of TNCR/TTI, the applicants have been specifically shown as junior to the private respondents, and this seniority list, the applicants have not challenged, and the same has become final. On the basis of this seniority list at Annexure R/l, now the official respondents have prepared the impugned seniority list vide Annexure A/1 dated 16.4.99, in which also the applicants were shown junior to the private respondents. On the basis of these two seniority lists vide, Annexures R/7 and Annexure A/1, the eligibility list has been prepared vide Annexure A/3 dated 7.7.99, showing the private respondents over and above the applicants. This eligibility list is prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of CTI is strictly in accordance with the seniority list vide Annexure A/1, which in turn is based on Annexure R/l. Therefore, the applicants cannot question the eligibility list vide Annexure A/3. They also contended that this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 16.8.99 had passed an interim order, directing that if any selection was held for the post of CTI in pursuance of Notification at Annexure A/3 dated 7.7.99, the result of the same should not be declared till the next date, and the said order was continued from time to time. But the same was vacated vide order dated 15.9.2000. After vacation of the interim order, the official respondents had rightly issued the panel dated 2.11.2000 (Annexure MA/6) for the purpose of promotion to the post of CTI in the pay scale at Rs. 2000-3200, in which the names of the applicants were not found. However, this Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.2000 in MA No. 403/2000 (in OA No. 387/99) directed the respondents not to issue any promotion/ appointment order on the basis of the said panel (Annexure MA-6). They further contended that the said panel MA-6 is neither the subject matter of this OA nor the applicants had challenged the same. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. They further contended that since the applicants have not challenged the promotion of the private respondents to the post of HTTE vide Annexure R/5 dated 20.6.86, the applicants could not challenge the seniority list of Annexure A/1, nor they can challenge the eligibility list prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of CTI. Their claims, if any, regarding their challenge to the promotion of the respondents vide Annexure R/5 dated 20.6.86 would be hopelessly barred by time. Even the seniority list of HTTE dated 23.05.97 vide Annexure R/l, the applicants have not challenged in time. The impugned seniority list vide Annexure A/1 based on seniority list of Annexure R/l dated 23.5.97 cannot be challenged at this stage. Therefore, these applications are liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Their further contention is that in view of these circumstances, the judgments of Hon'bie the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh-I and II, Jatinder Pal Singh etc. do not apply to these cases. Mr. U.D. Sharma for official respondents and S/Shri Nand Kishore and Virendra Lodha advanced leading arguments on behalf of all the contesting respondents and other similarly placed reserved category candidates. They have cited following judgments in support of their contentions. 1. Akhil Bhartiya Soshit. Kartnachari Sangh through its Secretary and Anr. v. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways and Ors., JT 1996(8) SC 274. 2. Durga Charan Holder and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1994(2) SLR 126 (FB) (CAT-Calcutta). 3. Rudra Kumar Sain and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000(6) Apex Decision 605=2000(3) ATI 392. 4. R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra).;