PRITPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of J&K has been preferred against order dated 2.2.2010 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Jammu) dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed the benefit of seniority of senior clerk to be tagged with the post of Enquiry-Cum-Reservation Clerk (for brevity the ECRC). The aforesaid claim has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was a direct recruit for appointment to the post of ECRC.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the office of Divisional Railway Manager-respondent no. 2 on 23.12.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 in the Personnel Department. He was then promoted as a Senior Clerk in the pay scale of 4500-7000 with effect from 28.10.1993. He responded to the advertisement for the post of ECRC which was available in the Commercial Department. For all intends and purposes his appointment to the post of ECRC was by way of direct recruitment. Before the Tribunal the petitioner placed firm reliance on Clause V of the Master Circular dated 10.09.1991 issued by the Ministry of Railways on the subject of seniority of non-gazetted staff. The aforesaid clause stipulates that when the staff is transferred keeping in view the administrative interest from one cadre to another then their seniority position in new cadre is to be protected. The Tribunal found that the reliance of the petitioner Clause V (12) was wholly mis-placed and mis-conceived because the petitioner was not transferred from one seniority unit to another by keeping in view the administrative interest or in larger public interest. Infact, he had applied for a General Department Competitive Examination Quota post in the Commercial Department by exercising an option for change of cadre. For all intends and purposes it is considered as a direct appointment through Railway Recruitment Board. Therefore, no benefit of seniority for the service ren dered as Senior Clerk could be given to the petitioner in the cadre of ECRC. The other argument that since his pay was protected it would follow that his seniority would also be protected.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Tribunal is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference of this Court. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Senior Clerk in the Personnel Department of the Railway, had applied for a post under the General Department Competitive Examination Quota which was available in the Commercial Department with an option for change of cadre. He succeeded and was. appointed to the post of ECRC. For all intends and purposes this was a direct recruitment. He cannot thus argue that the earlier service rendered by him as a Senior Clerk must be reckoned for grant of seniority in the cadre of ECRC. It was not an appointment by way of transfer. It was a voluntary act on the part of the petitioner and no transfer of cadre in the administrative or public interest was added by the respondent so as to bring his case within the meaning of Clause V (12) of the Master Circular dated 10.09.1991. The writ petition does not merit admission and is thus liable to be dismissed.