OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were three independent divisions called the departments under the Control of Divisional Electrical Engineer, Jhansi. They were:

(2.) Department styled as workshop mentioned at serial No. 2 above was merged with the department office of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Bombay. This merger continued till July 31, 1979. Effective from. August 1, 1979, all the three original departments trifurcated on August 31, 1956 were reamalgamated in the matter of staff and a common seniority list was introduced in respect of all the four cadres which were prior to September, 1956 on a common seniority list. Pursuant to the amalgamation common seniority list (Annexure-6) was drawn up. It purports to be the combined seniority list of the Railway Administration, Electrical Department, Central Railway, Jhansi. Validity of the seniority list is impugned, in this appal. In this seniority list appellant No. 1 is at serial No. 3, appellant No. 2 is at serial No. 4, and appellant No. 3 is at serial No. 10. The department has assigned seniority to respondents Nos. 3-6, in the same seniority list at serial Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 9 respectively in the cadre of head clerks. The appellants contend that when the three departments had a common seniority, list, the appellants. were senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 but after trifurcation and reamalgamation respondents Nos. 3 to 6 who belonged to erstwhile workshop staff and who were amalgamated with the staff of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Bombay, obtained accelerated promotion because of easy availability of vacancies. Consequently, when re-amalgamation was introduced from August 1, 1979 when respondents Nos. 3 to 6 reverted to the common seniority list with appellants and other similarly situated persons, they scored a march over the appellants because of a fortuitous event. The contention in terms is that where staff employed in different units under the administrative control of one higher officer are borne on a common seniority list, when because of trifurcation reamalgamation all are brought back on the common seniority list, their position ante must be reflected in the seniority list. Original seniority it is said must prevail otherwise any other view would be denial of equality, of opportunity in the matter of public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly the appellants challenged the seniority list in, W.P. No. 1415 of 1983 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A Division Bench of the High Court by a short cryptic order rejected the Writ Petition observing that the Court did not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The appellants have an iron clad case. The facts, not disputed, to summarise briefly are that under the Divisional Electrical Engineer there were three separate departments under his administrative control. Members of the Staff of the three departments were borne on a common seniority list. In other words they were deemed to belong to one office, in the matter of seniority and promotion. This is not only not disputed but the averment to that effect in para 6 of the petition has been admitted in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Administration. It is again admitted that the three appellants since their entry into service were senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. For the administrative convenience the Railway Administration trifurcated the cadres. In other words, three units were separated from each other which resulted in each unit having its own seniority list and the common seniority list became irrelevant from the date of the trifurcation. The unit No. 2 called the workshop was amalgamated with the office of the Chief. Electrical Engineer, Bombay. That is not controverted. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 belonged to the administrative staff in the department styled as the workshop. The result of the trifurcation and amalgamation of the workshop with the Bombay Office was that the workshop staff including respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were taken over on the seniority list maintained by the Bombay office. It is admitted that on account of availability of vacancies in the Bombay Office respondents Nos. 3 to 6 got some accelerated promotions in the cadre of head clerks. Surprisingly after a span of 23 years, Railway Administration reconsidered its earlier decision and detached the workshop staff from the office of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Bombay and brought it back to Jhansi and three former departments under Divisional Electrical Engineer were amalgamated. In other words situation ante as on August 31, 1956 was restored, and members of the staff were brought on common seniority list cadrewise. This factual averment is unambiguously admitted. Consequent upon amalgamation in 1979 a fresh common seniority list was drawn up in which cadre- wise respondent No. 3 was shown senior to appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 9 were shown senior to appellant No. 3. Obviously when the amalgamation took place, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 could not score a march over erstwhile seniors on any valid principle of seniority. This would unquestionably be denial of equality under Article 16 of the Constitution. It may be that they might have enjoyed some accelerated promotion when workshop staff was amalgamated with the Bombay Office. But when they were repatriated and re- amalgamated with original two offices and brought back on the common seniority list, they must find their original place qua the appellants. This is not a case where appellants were passed over at the time of selection or denied promotion on the ground of unsuitability. In such a situation status quo ante has to be restored. Obviously respondents Nos. 3 to 6 will be below the appellants and any other view to the contrary would be violative of Article 16 as it would constitute denial of equality in the matter of promotion. Therefore, the seniority list drawn up on a principle contrary to what is discussed herein would be bad in law and deserves to be quashed.