PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has come up before us on transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act The case of the six petitioners is that having been selected by the Railway Service Commusion along with other respondents in 1982 as Apprentice Elect ''e Chargemen, they were given along with the respondents a concentrated six months training instead of the normal two year training. After six months of training they appeared along with the respondents in a departmental test and interview on 26-12-1982 and while the six petitioners were successful 17 other apprentices of their batch failed. While the six petitioners were given working posts after successful corrpletion of the concentrated training on passing the test, the failed 17 apprentices continued with extended training and took the second test held on 7-11-1983. In the second test 15 out of 17 apprentices passed and the two failed candidates were given a third test in June 1984. The General Manager of the Nothern Railway on 18-1-1985 issued orders Annexure M to the Petition) indicating that "those who qualified after six months training would be placed above those Chargemen of their batch who qualified later-after two years. Their inter-se seniority will be fixed on Ihe basis of mirks obtained by them in respective examination! test." (Italics supplied)

(2.) Soon afier, on 27-3-1985 the aforesaid order was superseded 'with orders of the Addl. CPO' and it was decided (Anaexure N to the petition) that "the seniority of all apprentices (those who qualified bfier 6 months training and others who qualified after 2 years training) should be fixed on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate in the test irrespective of the date/ stage of the test i.e. presuming as if all were tested/qualified after 2 years training."

(3.) The petitioners claim that since they had qualified after six months of concentrated training and qualified in the first test itself and were given working posts they should be held senior to those who failed in the first examination as per the order of 18-1-1985. They have prayed that the impugned order No. 7642/148/EMU(SIIA)of 27-3-1985 should be quashed and their seniority amongst their batch-mates should be fixed on the basis of the seniority list already circulated with Nothern Railway's order no. 939-E/156/P-7 dated 25-1-1985 based on the order of 18-1-1985.