REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE .
1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9176 OF 2018(@ SLP (C) NO(S).22444 OF 2017)Prabhat Ranjan Singh & Anr. . Appellant(s)VersusR.K. Kushwaha & Ors. Respondent(s)WITHCONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 717 OF 2018IN SLP (C) NO(S).22444 OF 2017CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 732 OF 2018IN SLP (C) NO(S).22444 OF 2017SLP (C) NO(S). 4144 OF 2018T.C. (C) No. 52 OF 2018JUDGMENTDeepak Gupta J.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySANJAY KUMARDate: 2018.09.0714:12:03 ISTReason:1.Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No(s).22444 of 2017.
22.This is yet another battle, in the seemingly never endingwar between promotees and direct recruits.3.In the Indian Railways, there is a service known as theIndian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (for short ‘theIRSSE’).This is a Group A service.Recruitment to theservice is by two modes – 50% by direct recruitment and 50%by promotion from amongst Group B officers in the feederservices.The direct recruits are selected through ssion (for short ‘the UPSC’).4.On 23.10.2007, the Ministry of Railways issued arequisition to the UPSC for filling up vacancies in the Group Aservice. The test was to be conducted in the year 2008 andthe recruitment was known as the Engineering ServicesExamination, 2008. Shri R.K. Kushwaha, hereinafter referredto as ‘the direct recruit’, was successful in the saidexamination.He was duly selected and joined service on
314.12.2009. Some officers, who were working in the Group Bservice of the Signal and Telecommunication Department .2014 to Group A service with effect from 08.05.2014.These officers were given benefit of weightage of 5 years ofservice rendered in Group B service in terms of Rule 334 ofthe Indian Railways Establishment Manual (for short ‘theIREM’), Vol.1 and their relevant date for fixation of senioritywas fixed as 08.05.2009.5.The relevant portion of the order dated 12.12.2014 fixingthe seniority of the 87 promotee officers reads as follows:“2.All the 87 officers will be placed in the seniority listbelow the junior most direct recruit (DR) IRSSEofficer of Engineering Service Examination (ESE) 2007batch (earliest date of joining 15.12.2008), and abovethe senior most Direct Recruit IRSSE officers ofEngineering Service Examination of 2008 batch(earliest joining 14.12.2009), whose inter se seniorityhas already been circulated.”Resultantly the promotee officers were placed en bloc seniorto all the direct recruits.
46.Shri R.K. Kushwaha, a direct recruit, filed O.A. No.050/00260/2015 before the Patna Bench of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’) challenging theseniority given to the promotee officers vide order dated12.12.2014.The petition was disposed of vide order dated01.04.2015 directing the Chairman of the Railway Board toconsider the representation of Shri R.K. Kushwaha dated19.03.2015 within a period of two months.The Chairmanvide speaking order dated 09.06.2015 rejected the plea of ShriR.K. Kushwaha to fix the seniority of the direct recruits fromthe date of sending of the requisition.According to theChairman, the seniority of the Junior Scale, Group A officersof the eight organised railway services including the IRSSEwas to be fixed in terms of the provisions contained in theIREM Vol 1 which had the approval of the President underArticle 309 of the Constitution of India.7.Shri R.K. Kushwaha thereafter filed a fresh O.A. beingO.A. No. 460 of 2015 claiming the following reliefs :
5“8.1That your Lordships may graciously be pleasedto quash and set aside the impugned ordersdated 09/12.06.2015 passed by the RespondentNo.1 together with order dated 12.12.2014passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained inAnnexure A/8 and A/4 respectively which arecontrary to the order passed by Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in NR Parmar Case andDOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 as referred toabove.8.2That your Lordships may further be pleased todirect the respondents to recast the seniority listafresh on the basis of principle laid down byHon’ble Supreme Court of India in NR ParmarCase and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 asreferred to above without any further delay.8.3That the Respondents further be directed toissue Corrigendum/amendment/Correction slipin Indian Railway Establishment ManualVolume 1,henceforthinviewofnewGuidelines/directives of DOPT OM dated04.03.2014 as contained in Annexure A/11which is based on the principle/law laid downby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NRParmar Case regarding fixation of inter se seniority between Direct Recruitees andPromotees Officers.8.4That the Respondents further be directed grantall consequential benefits in favour of theapplicant including promotion in JA Grade onthe basis of his seniority as per the principle laiddown by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NRParmar Case and DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014as referred to above.8.5Any other relief or reliefs including the cost ofthe proceeding may be allowed in favour of theApplicant.”
68.It would be pertinent to mention that none of thepromotee officers was made a party in this O.A. Argumentswere heard and judgment was reserved in the matter.Thereafter, Shri Prabhat Ranjan, who was a promotee andalso the General Secretary of East Central Railway PromoteeOfficers Association, East Central Railway at Hajipur filed anapplication for impleadment. The application was taken upon 05.02.2016 and the same was allowed.The judgmentwhich had been reserved for pronouncement was de reservedand on the same day, the CAT heard all the parties and againreserved judgment. Liberty, however, was given to the partiesto file written arguments.The CAT vide its order dated03.05.2016 partly allowed the O.A. It rejected the prayer ofShri R.K. Kushwaha that the direct recruits were entitled toget seniority from 23.10.2007 the date on which therequisition for filling up the direct vacancies was sent, on theground that the case of Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar &Ors.1 was not applicable in as much as the reference to the1(2012) 13 SCC 340
7year of requisition is always with reference to the vacancyyear.If the vacancies are notified well in advance andrequisition made earlier to arising of the vacancies, the directrecruits cannot get or claim benefit of seniority from the dateof requisition.9.The case of the direct recruit was that the principle laiddown in N.R. Parmar’s case (supra) had been recognized andimplemented by the Department of Personnel and Training(for short ‘the DoPT’) in its circular dated 04.03.2014. As perhim, since requisition was issued on 23.10.2007, he shouldbe granted seniority from the said date. The CAT held thatthe case of the direct recruit that he should be given seniorityfrom 23.10.2007 is not acceptable.10.In our view, this was, in fact, the only relief claimed bythe direct recruit in his O.A. and the matter should haveended there.However, the CAT went on to examine thespeaking order passed by the Chairman, Railway Board dated
809.06.2015 and examined the same in the context of theDoPT circular dated 04.03.2014 and the judgment of thisCourt passed in the N.R. Parmar’s case (supra).11.The case of the Railways as well as the presentappellant, who was the intervener in the O.A. was that theirseniority had to be fixed in terms of the IREM Vol 1, whichprovided that the promotees were to be given a maximum of 5years weightage in terms of Rules 327 to 341.It is notnecessary to extract all the rules. It would suffice to note thatRule 328 provided that the seniority of officers appointed tovarious Group A services in the Indian Railways shall bedetermined on the basis of ‘date of increment in the time scale(DITS)’ which is to be determined in accordance with certainlaid down principles.In the case of direct appointment,pursuant to an examination conducted by the UPSC, theDITS is to be reckoned from the date of commencement ofearning increments in the regular scale. Rule 334 providesthat in case of Group B officers permanently promoted to
9Group A services, the DITS of the above officers would bedetermined by giving weightage.The said rule reads asfollows:“334 In the case of Group ‘B’ officers permanentlypromoted to Junior Scale of Group ‘A’ services:(1)xxxxxxxxx(2)If two or more than two officers are promoted onthe same date, the following method shall befollowed to determine their inter se senioritywithin the Railway: (i)The relative seniority of officers of each Railwayshall be in the order of their position in thepanel for that Railway.(ii)The DITS of the above officers, shalldetermined by giving weightage based on:be(a)the year of service connoted by the initialpay on permanent promotion to Group ‘A’service; or(b)half the total number of years ofcontinuous service in Group ‘B’, both officiatingand permanent;whichever is more, subject to a maximum of 5years; provided that the weightage so assigneddoes not exceed the total non fortuitous servicerendered by the officer in Group ‘B’.”12.Before the CAT, it was urged by the Railways and plicable because weightage of 5 years, as additional years of
10seniority was to be given to the promotees and in this behalfreference was also made to the Indian Administrative Service(IAS) (Regulations of Seniority) Rules, 1987 wherein also StateCivil Service Officers who are inducted into the IAS are givensome weightage while fixing their ‘year of allotment’. The CATheld that in the scheme of IAS any vagaries or arbitrarinessdue to the date when the recruitment process is completed isremoved whereas in the railways reference to seniority andinter se seniority on the basis of DITS is subject tounintended delays in the completion of one recruitmentprocess or the other and this may even be due to humanmanipulation.The relevant portion of the order dated03.05.2016 of the CAT reads as follows:“19 .Therefore, the basic philosophy of NR Parmarof removing arbitrariness because of date on which anaction is completed with respect to the two streamsholds good in this case also. Policy making is withinthe domain of the Executive, but this has to bereasonable and rational. Since there is obvious scopefor arbitrariness in the Railways policy, we have tointervene in judicial review. The Railways must aligntheir policy in consonance with this fundamentalphilosophy of N.R. Parmar.
1120. Another serious anomaly we find from therespondents action is that while the ratio described forthe DR and the promotees is 50:50, they have over theyears inducted promotees about three times thenumber of direct recruits. In the representation beforethe Chairman, Railway Board, the applicant hasshown that from the year 2001 to 2007 against 95direct recruits, 376 promotees have been inducted.The chairman, railway Board has justified this on theground that as per the government instructions, directrecruitment was curtailed to one third for those years.Such government instructions cannot alter the basicprinciple of laid down ratio between the DR andpromotes. If downsizing was the objective, this has tobe done keeping the ratio between DR and promoteesintact. .21.xxxxxxxxx22. Thus, the provisions of the IREM determininginter se seniority based on DITS are clearly flawed andarbitrary. Accordingly, we quash and set aside theimpugned orders dated 9/12.6.2015 (Annexure A/8)and date 12.12.2014 (Annexure A/4) being contrary tothe underlying principle emerging from the Hon’bleApex Court judgment in N.R. Parmar case as well asDOPT guidelines in this regard, which mandate thatwherever it is considered necessary to follow differentprinciples for inter se seniority, consultation should bemade with the DOPT. The respondent are directed torecast the seniority afresh and take necessary actionto make corrections in the IREM in the light of theaforesaid observations within a period of four monthsfrom the date of receipt/production of a copy of thisorder.”13.Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh challenged the order of theCAT before the Patna High Court by filing Writ Petition No.
1210669 of 2016 along with one Shri Girish Kumar.Thispetition was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2017 and oneof the main grounds for dismissal of the petition was that thecircular of the DoPT dated 04.03.2014 was binding on theRailways.The Patna High Court went on to hold that theIREM is not statutory in nature and is only a codified set ofguidelines. It further went on to hold that the power of theRailways to frame rules under Rule 201 of the Indian RailwayEstablishment Code (for short ‘IREC’), which is statutory innature, is only confined to Group C and Group D posts.Therefore, the Railways are bound by the OM issued by theDoPT. This judgment has been challenged by Shri PrabhatRanjan Singh.14.It would also be pertinent to mention that pursuant tothe direction issued by the CAT on 03.05.2016, the Railwaysamended Rules 327 to 341 of the IREM Vol 1 by removingreference to ‘DITS’ and introduced the concept of ‘year ofallotment’.According to the Railways, as per the amended
13rules inter se seniority between direct recruits and promoteesshall be determined and fixed on the basis of ‘year ofallotment’ and not on the basis of ‘DITS’. The amendment isapplicable in all cases of fixation of inter se seniority ofpromotee officers from the panel of 2012 2013 onwards andfor Direct Recruit 2006 examination onwards. Thereafter, theseniority has been re fixed and only the promotee officers,who have been allotted 2008 as the ‘year of allotment’ havebeen given seniority over the direct recruits and thosepromotee officers who have been allotted 2009 as the year ofallotment have been ranked en bloc junior to the directrecruits of the year 2009. Thus, the anomaly pointed out bythe CAT has been removed and the system which is followedin the IAS is being applied even in the Railways.15.This development took place on 05.03.2018, during thependency of this petition. According to the direct recruits, theaction of the Railways in placing some of the promotee officersabove the direct recruits was violative of the order of the CAT
0070/17 before the CAT which was dismissed videorder dated 02.04.2018. The CAT held that in its order thereference to N.R. Parmar’s case (supra) was regardingremoving the arbitrariness due to ‘DITS’ and bringing it in linewith the concept of ‘vacancy year/allotment year’, which dment fixes the ‘allotment/vacancy year’ for fixing theseniority and not ‘DITS’. It also held that since this Court isseized of the matter, the parties can place their grievanceregarding the legality of the revised policy before us. Thecontempt petition was dismissed.16.Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the direct recruit filedwrit petition being CWJC No. 6489 of 2018 (R.K. Kushwaha v.Union of India & Ors.) before the Patna High Court forquashing/setting aside the order dated 02.04.2018 passed inthe contempt petition. Vide order dated 03.05.2018, we havetransferred the aforesaid writ petition to this Court.
1517.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Beforeus Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant(Prabhat Ranjan Singh) submitted that the petition has beenrendered infructuous in view of the amendment to Rules 327to 341 of the IREM Vol 1. He, however, submitted that theobservations made by the CAT and the High Court that theDoPT circulars are binding on the Railways and that theobservations of the Patna High Court that IREM has nostatutory force are wrong and are liable to be set aside. Onthe other hand, Shri Mukul Rohatgi and Shri Guru KrishnaKumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the directrecruits submitted that the IREM, which provided for givingweightage in seniority to the promotees, was set aside by theCAT. Therefore, by still continuing to give weightage to thepromotees the contemnors have committed contempt of orderof the CAT. It has also strenuously been urged before us thatthe rules which provide for giving weightage to the promoteeofficers are totally illegal and arbitrary. Shri Maninder Singh,
16learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that theRailways are empowered to frame their own rules. Accordingto him, even the IREMs are issued with the concurrence ofthe President of India in terms of Article 309 of theConstitution of India and framed under the Constitution ofIndia.18.In our view, the following issues arise for decision:IWhether the Railways is bound by the rules framed bythe DoPT or it can frame its own rules and whether the IREMhas statutory force?IIWhether Shri R.K. Kushwaha, the direct recruit had laidchallenge to the rules, which provide for giving weightage inthe seniority to the promotee officers?IIIWhether the findings of the CAT in respect of N.R.Parmar’scase(supra)waslimitedarbitrariness only in respect of ‘DITS’?toremovingthe
17IVWhether by issuing the memorandum dated 05.03.2018amendment/modifying rules 327 341 the Railways haveviolated the order issued by the CAT?IWhether the Railways is bound by the rules framedby the DoPT or it can frame its own rules and whether theIREM has statutory force?19.The CAT, in its order, held that the Railways are boundby the DoPT circulars.The High Court of Patna has gonefurther and has come to the conclusion that the Railways haveno jurisdiction to frame rules for Group A & B services. TheHigh Court has further held that the IREM rules are notstatutory in nature and are only guidelines having no bindingforce. On the other hand learned senior counsel for the UOIhas drawn our attention to the Government of India (Allocationof Business) Rules 1961 framed under Clause 3 of Article 77 ofthe Constitution of India.Under these Rules business hasbeen allocated to different departments. As far as the DoPT isconcerned the relevant portion reads as under:
18“I. RECRUITMENT, PROMOTION AND MORALE OFSERVICES1. .2.General questions relating to recruitment,promotion and seniority pertaining to Central Servicesexcept Railways Services and services under the controlof the Department of Atomic Energy, the erstwhileDepartment of Electronics, the Department of Space andthe Scientific and Technical Services under theDepartment of Defence Research and Development.3.4.General policy matters regarding classification ofposts and grant of gazetted status in relation to Servicesother than Railway Services.5.Recruitment of ministerial staff for theGovernment of India Secretariat and its attached officesexcept that for the Department of Railways, theDepartment of Atomic Energy, the erstwhile Departmentof Electronics, and the Department of Space.6.Appointment of non Indians to Civil posts underthe Government of India except posts under theDepartment of Railways, the Department of AtomicEnergy, the erstwhile Department of Electronics and theDepartment of Space.xxxIV.xxxxxxSERVICE CONDITIONS21.General questions (other than those which havea financial bearing including Conduct Rules relating to AllIndia and Union Public Services except in regard toservices under the control of the Department ofRailways, the Department of Atomic Energy, theerstwhile Department of Electronics and the Departmentof Space).
1922.Conditions of service of Central Governmentemployees (excluding those under the control of theDepartment of Railways, the Department of AtomicEnergy, the erstwhile Department of Electronics, theDepartment of Space and the Scientific and Technicalpersonnel under the Department of Defence Research andDevelopment, other than those having a financial bearingand in so far as they raise points of general serviceinterest).23(a) – (d) .24.25.26.27.General policy regarding retrenchment andrevision of temporary Government servants exce
in Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume 1, henceforth in view of new Guidelines/directives of DOPT OM dated 04.03.2014 as contained in Annexure A/11 which is based on the principle/law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NR
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
financial institution resident in Hong Kong and is a tax resident in a reportable jurisdiction(s). For individuals, this definition is further broken down into the following categories: Individuals holding reportable accounts An individual who holds a reportable account and is a tax resident in a reportable jurisdiction is a reportable person.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study United States v. Nixon, 1974 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1987 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Bush v. Gore, 2000 Landmark U.S. Supre
