LexK. MANLCKARAJ versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
K. MANlCKARAJ
v.
-
UNION OF INDIA
APRIL 2, 1997
B·
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Se1vice Law : Railways-Promotion-Quota for reserved categmy--ln-
crease in the number of rese1ved posts with the increase in the member of
c
upgraded posts-{Jnion of India to consider the case of promotion of the
appellant to the post of Welfare Inspector Grade If-Direction issued.
Appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate was initially appointed as
Assistant Station Master, then promoted to a higher post and further
promoted as Welfare Inspector Grade III. The cadre of Welfare Inspectors
D consisted of three categories viz., Grade I, II and III. By an Order the cadre
strength of different categories was restructured with 35% of posts in
Grade r, 40% in Grade II and 25% in Grade III. In view of change of
percentage of different categories, appellant expected a promotion from
Grade III to Grade II but he was not promoted. Therefore, he filed an
E
application before the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that since
three posts from Grade III were upgraded to Grade II, the total number
of posts available in Grade II was 26 as against the original number of 23
and since there was reservation of 15% for SC, the total number of reserved
posts in grade II would work out at 4 and factually only 3 were working
and thus he was entitled to promotion.
F
The respondent contended that there was no change in the strength
of Grade II and it remained at 23. It was also contended that some posts
were upgraded from Grade III to Grade II for sports personnel and such
upgradation was temporary.
(
G
The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that the
posts were specially meant for sports personnel and dismissed the applica-
tion. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal's findings, appellant preferred the
present appeal.
H
Allowing the appeal, this Court
504
K. MANICKARAJ v. U.0.1. [PATIANAIK, J.]
505
HELD : 1. The upgraded posts which were made in 1987 still con- A
tinue and therefore it cannot be said that the upgradation was made for a
temporary period meant for sports personnel. [507-B]
2. The cadre strength of Grade II Inspectors has become 26 and 15%
reservation tu the cadre would work out to 4 posts and not 3 as contended
by the respondent. [507-C]
B
3. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are
directed to consider the case of promotion of appellant to Grade II Welfare
Inspector. [507-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of C
1997.
From the Judgment and order dated 19.9.95 and 8.2.96 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 267/94 and R.A. No. 12 of
1996.
Mrs. Pushpa Rajan and K.B. Sounder Rajan for the Appellant.
S.W.A. Qadri and A.K. Sharma for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATTANAIK, J. Delay Condoned.
Leave granted.
D
E
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 19.9.1995 in OA No. F
267 of 1994. The said application has been filed by the appellant for a
direction to the railway administration to promote the appellant as Welfare
Inspector Grade-II with effect from 2.4.1'993 as one post was available in
the reserved category.
The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are stated as G
under:
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Station Master in the scale
of Rs. 330-560 and was then promoted to a higher post in the scale of Rs.
425-640 with effect from 8.1.1985. He was further promoted as Welfare H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997] 3 S.C.R.
A
Inspector Grade-III in the scale of Rs. 1480-2300 and joined the said post
on 27.12.1991. The appellant admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste. The
cadre of Welfare Inspectors consisted of 3 categories; namely: Welfare
Inspector Grade-I in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200; Welfare Inspector Grade-
n in scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and W clfare Inspector Grade-III in the scale
B of Rs. 1400-2300. By Order dared 27th January, 1993 the cadre strength of
the different categories of Welfare Inspectors was restructmed and it was
directed that 35% of posts would be in Grade-I, 40% in Grade-II and 25%
in Grade-III. In view of change of percentage of the different categories of
posts, the appellant expected a promotion to Grade-II but the same having
not been done, he filed the application before the Tribunal. It was averred
C in the application filed beforeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.