HAR NARAIN Vs. RAM LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two anneals under Clause X of the Letters Patent preferred by Har Narain and the General Manager Railway, Appellants, are directed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby he set aside the instructions contained in annexure 'G' only in so far as these adversely affected the rights of Ram Lal Respondent and granted him consequential relief. The issues of law and fact arising in these appeals being identical, learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment will govern both of them.

(2.) RAM Lal, Respondent -writ Petitioner, who belongs to the schedule castes, joined Railway service as a Ticket Collector Grade 1 on June 17, 1957 in the grade, of Rs. 60 - -130. The promotional posts to which the Respondent could aspire were those of the Ticket Collectors Grade II in the grade of Rs. 150 - -240 or as Traveling Ticket Examiner in the grade of Rs. 130 - -212. It is the admitted stand that prior to July 12, 1962, the method of promotion to these higher posts was to the effect that the concerned Divisional Personnel Officer could call upon the Ticket Collectors to exercise their option if they would like their future advancement in the channel of the higher grade of Ticket Collectors or as Traveling Ticket Examiners. On Respondent Ram Lal's own showing even after 1962 he expressly exercised his option to choose the channel of Traveling Ticket Examiners in the grade of Rs. 130 - -212 and was holding the said post when he preferred the writ petition. It was his claim that the posts of. Traveling Ticket Examiners and Ticket Collectors were equivalent and a joint seniority list for the purpose of future promotions was being maintained in which Respondent Ram Lal was shown as senior to the Appellant Har Narain. It was pointed out that Har Narain Appellant was appointed as Ticket Collector on 1st September, 1962, whilst the Respondent had been so appointed much earlier.

(3.) AGAIN it is not in dispute that even subsequent to the aforesaid clarification, - -vide annexure 'G', Respondent Ram Lal duly exercised his option for the channel of promotion on his own volition. However, a post of senior conductor in the pay scale of Rs. 250 - -380 which was required to be filled in by a member of the Scheduled Castes later fell vacant and Respondent Ram Lal wanted to lay claim thereto. It was his grievance that by annexure 'G' his purported right to exercise another option with regard to the channel of promotion was taken away and consequently his claim to the vacant post was negatived and therefore, the said policy letter was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. As a necessary relief the writ Petitioner (Respondent Ram Lal) claimed that he must be sent, to a promotional course, passing of which was a prerequisite for selection to the post of the conductor and he further challenged the detailing of Har Narain Appellant to qualify in the said course.