SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No.1 before us filed Original Application No. 561 - HR of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench aggrieved by what is alleged to be improper fixation of his seniority in the select panel for promotion to higher post.
(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 was appointed as a Gateman in the scale of Rs. 775 -1025 (revised scale Rs. 2610 -3540). The post/cadre of Ticket Collector in the scale of Rs. 950 -1500 (revised pay scale Rs. 3050 -4590) under the commercial Department under the Recruitment Rules is filled up in the ratio of 2:1 by direct recruitment and promotion through the process of selection respectively from eligible Group -D category of staff. Respondent No.1 accordingly participated in the process of such selection, a circular was having been issued on 25.09.2002 against the promotion quota through the process of selection procedure. He cleared the written test and viva -voce but apparently his name was lower in the select panel and the vacancies existing were less. It is the case of respondent No.1 that since people eligible from Group -D are of various categories like Luggage Porter, Sealman, Waterman, Safaiwala, Call Men, Peon etc., their inter -se seniority for the purposes of promotion to the post of Ticket Collector is to be determined on the basis of total length of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade in terms of para 320 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual -I (IREM). Since according to respondent No.1, the fixation of seniority in the select panel had been wrongly carried out, the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal.
(3.) THE aforesaid plea was contested on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of para No. 320 were being wrongly construed by the said respondent. The impugned order after recording respective stands of the parties proceeds on the stated agreement between the parties that the inter -se seniority of Group -D for promotion to Group -C is to be reckoned as per the provisions of para 320 and on its interpretation found in favour of respondent No.1 and allowed the Original Application.;