SWAPAN KUMAR PAL Vs. SAMITABHAR CHOKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal filed by the private persons and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India, are directed against one and the same judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O. A. No. 1360 of 1990. Though, the special leave petition by the Union of India is barred by limitation, but in view of the fact that the leave has been granted by this Court at the instance of the private persons and the judgment of the tribunal is under challenge in appeal, it would be meet and proper to condone the delay in filing the special leave petition, and we accordingly condone the same and grant leave therein.

(2.) The inter se seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk under the Railway Administration between the promotees from the grade of Office Clerk (Clerk Grade II) against 66-2/3% quota and the in-service graduates, working as Junior Clerks, who were promoted through a limited departmental examination against 131/3% quota is the subject matter of dispute. By the impugned order of the tribunal, the promotees who were initially promoted on ad hoc basis and lateron, whose services were regularised, have been held to be entitled to count their ad hoc period also for the purpose of reckoning their seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk, whereas, according to the Railway Administration as well as according to the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 247/97, the criterion for determination of seniority being the date of regular promotion after due process, the ad hoc period would not count for reckoning the seniority in the promotional grade, which is the grade of Senior Clerk in the case in hand. Thus, the sole question that aries for consideration is whether the services rendered by the promotees on ad hoc basis in the post of Senior Clerk can be allowed to be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk

(3.) The cadre of Office Clerk in the scale of Rs. 950-1500 is filled up, 662/3% by direct recruitment through the agency of the Railway Recruitment Board and 331/3% by promotion by selection of specified Group 'D' staff, the minimum educational qualification for a direct recruit being matriculate or its equivalent examination with not less than 50% marks in the aggregate. The next promotional post is the senior clerk in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040. Under the Railway Establishment Manual, Paragraph (174), of the total vacancies in the grade, 20% of the posts are filled up by direct recruitment through the Agency of the Railway Recruitment Board, 131/3% through a limited departmental competitive examination from amongst the serving graduates clerks in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 through the agency of the railway Recruitment Board and 662/3% are filled up by promotion from the Office Clerks. The present appellants were appointed on different dates as Office Clerks (Clerk Grade II) in the year 1981-82, and all of them are graduates. The private respondents were non-graduates and were serving as Office Clerks in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500. On diverse dates between 9-12-1982 to 07-1-1984, these private respondents were promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on ad hoc basis, as no regular recruitment could be made by holding suitability test, because of certian stay order passed by different Courts. On 18-1-85, the appellants were declared suitable for promotion to the grade of Senior Clerk against 131/3% meant for in-service graduate office clerks. The suitability test of the private respondents, who had been promoted on ad hoc basis was held and the result was declared on 28-2-1985. The Railway Administration published a seniority list on 1-1-88, but the same had not been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions for determination of seniority, as contained in paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual. A revised seniority list, therefore, was prepared on 2-11-89, in which list, the appellants were shown senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Senior Clerk, on the basis of the date of regular promotion after due process of selection. The private respondents herein challenged the legality of the aforesaid seniority list by filing O.A. No. 1360/90 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal having allowed the O.A. on the conclusion that the period of ad hoc service of the respondents would count for their seniority, since the suitability test was delayed by the Administration over which the private respondents had no hand and having quashed the seniority list published on 2-11-89, and the private respondent having been declared senior to the present appellants, the present appeal has been filed by grant of special leave and the Railway Administration has also filed the special leave petition.