CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench dated 3rd December, 1992 passed in OA No. 524/91. Inter se seniority between the appellant and respondent No. 4 in the rank of senior publicity officer is the subject-matter of dispute. Pursuance to advertisement issued the appellant and respondent No. 4 were selected for the post and inter se position in the merit list, Appellant was given higher position than respondent No. 4. They were appointed to the post of senior publicity inspector but the appointment letter itself contained the stipulation that the continuance on the post of senior publicity inspector depends on passing the training as per principle. It is not disputed that after continuing in the post for five months, the appellant and respondent No. 4 were sent to undergo the training and in the first part of the examination that was held, respondent No. 4 was given the ranking 4 while the appellant was given the ranking 6. The inter se seniority however was determined by the competent authority showing appellant to be senior to respondent No. 4. This compelled the respondent No. 4 to file the application before the Tribunal. The respondent No. 4 took the stand that since both appellant and respondent No. 4 had undergone the training and in the training their ranking was altered giving respondent No. 4 a higher rank from the appellant said respondent No. 4 would be senior to the appellant in terms of para 303-A of the Railway Establishment Manual. The Railway Authorities on the other hand took the stand that the provisions of para 303-B would be attracted to the case in hand and therefore since appellant was given a higher position in the merit than respondent No. 4 at the initial recruitment the appellant was declared senior. The Tribunal however on consideration of the relevant materials and on examining the provisions of Rules dealing with seniority came to the conclusion that para 303-B will have no application to the case in hand any on the other hand the case is governed by para 303-A and since after the training respondent No. 4 was given a higher position than the appellant, respondent No. 4 should be declared senior to the appellant. With this conclusion the application having been allowed, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contends that para 303-A of the Railway Establishment Manual will have no application inasmuch as both the appellant and the respondent No. 4 had been recruited to the post of Senior Publicity Inspector and they were required to undergo to training thereafter. Alternatively it is argued that even if para 303-A applied then after the final examination name of the appellant was shown before the respondent No. 4 and therefore it should be deemed that the so called ranking after the first part of the examination stood altered after the viva voce examination. In view of this position this Court had passed an order on 3-11-95 directing the railway authorities to indicate as to whether the ranking given to the respective employees after the first part of the examination stood altered in any manner after the second part of the examination was over. Pursuant to the said order an affidavit has been filed by Railway administration being sworn to by Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway but nothing is clear from the same and it is copiously vague. In the aforesaid premises two questions arose for reconsideration:

(3.) The next question that arises for consideration is even applying 303-A whether the ranking given to the appellant and respondent No. 4 after the first part of examination stood altered in any manner. After the second part of examination was over, if the ranking given in the first part of the examination has not been altered in any manner then the respondent No. 4 must be held to be senior to the appellant. But if such ranking has been altered in any manner after the second part of the examination and the appellant has given a higher ranking than respondent No. 4, then certainly appellant would be senior to respondent No. 4. As the affidavit filed by the Railway Administration is not clear on this aspect, we think it is appropriate to call upon the General Manager personnel Gorakhpur, North Eastern Railway to redetermine the inter se seniority on the basis of the relevant material and in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment. Needless to mention the said General Manager would find out whether the inter se ranking between appellant and respondent No. 4 which was indicated after the first part of the examination stood in any way altered, after the second part of the examination and then pass appropriate orders thereon. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. The General Manager should pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.