AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 12-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH, 
A 
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, 
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] 
' 
Se1Vice Law : 
Seniority-By tlze time a se11ior perso11 belo11gi11g to the general categ01y 
gets promoted to the higher grade if the junior perso11 belo11ging to a rese1ved 
categ01y who had been promoted to still higher grade-Question of granti11g 
seniority to the general category ca11didate i11 the promoted category could 
B 
c 
11ot aris~Roster 111ea11t for rese1Ved category candidate followed-No barf or D 
filling up vacancies in the ge11eral categ01y even i11 favour of candidate 
belonging to rese1ved catego1y if such ca11didate is entitled to the same on the 
basis of his ge11eral seniority. 
R.K. Sabha1wal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 745; 
Union of India & Ors. v. Vi1pal Singh Clzauhan & Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 684; E 
Ma11agi11g Director EC/ Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Kanmakar & Ors., [1993) 4 
SCC 727; U11ion of India v. Mohd: Ramzan Khan, [1991) 1 SCC 580; Indian 
Administrative Se1Vice (S.C.S.) v. Union of India & Ors., [1993) Supp. l SCC 
730; Mohd. Slmjat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 449; 
Mohd. Bhakar v. Krishna Reddy, (1970) SLR 768; State of Mysore v. G.B. 
Purohit, (1967) SLR 753); Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of F 
Maharashtra, [1974) 1 SCC 317 and Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of 
India & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 575, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 16812 of 1996 
G 
• From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 304 of of 1992. 
Rajeev Dhawan, Manoj Goel and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the 
Petitioners. 
H 
165 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
c 
G.B. PATIANAIK, J. Special Leave Petition was listed before us on 
6th September, 1996 and the same was dismissed but it was indicated that 
the reasoned order will follow and accordingly this order is being passed. 
' ' 
The question for consideration is whether the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, committed any error in dismissing the O.As. 
filed before it on interpretation of the different circulars issued by the 
Railways and following the constitution Bench decision of this Court in 
R.K Sabh01wal's & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745, on the 
question of promotion of a reserved category candidate on the basis of his 
normal seniority in the cadre from which he is being promoted. 
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed O.A. No. 304 of 1992 challenging the 
promotion of Shri A.S. Rana, respondent No. 6 to the post of D.S.K.-1 
D made on 26.2.1991. The case of the petitioners was that petitioner No. 2 
joined the Railways as a Jr. Clerk on 4.12.1956 and was promoted as Sr. 
Clerk on 1.4.1966. He was promoted to D.S.K.-III on 16.10.1978 and 
further promoted to D.S.K.-11 on 24.3.1989. The respondent No. 6 belong-
ing to the reserved category was appointed in the Railways as Jr. Clerk on 
E 
F 
30.10.1983 and was promoted as Sr. Clerk on 16.8.1984. He was promoted 
as D.S.K.-III on 26.11.1986. The said respondent No. 6 was promoted 
earlier to petitioner No. 2 to the cadre of D.S.K.-11 on 8.10.1987, in view 
of the post available in the cadre of D.S.K.- II for the reserve category 
people. When the question of promotion to cadre of D.S.K.-1 came up for 
consideration against the vacancies meant for general category said respon-
dent No. 6 Shri Rana was promoted on 26.2.1991 on the basis of his 
accelerated seniority, he having taken advantage of accelerated promotion 
being a member of the reserved category. The petitioner No. 2 filed a 
representation before the authorities making the grievance·that respondent · 
No. 6 could not have been promoted to a post meant for general category 
and the authorities illegally promoted him. but not being successful therein, 
G challenged the promotion of respondent No. 6 before the Tribunal. The 
railway administration filed their counter-affidavit before the Tribpnal · 
taking several technical objections regarding the maintainability of the 
proceedings at the behest of the association. So far as the merits of the 
case are concerned, it was contended that no doubt respondent No. 6 had 
H been promoted to the cadre of D.S.K.- III and D.S.K.-11 against the 
AKHILB
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.