LexM. RAMJAYARAM versus GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B M. RAMJAYARAM v. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORS. MARCH 15, 1996 [K RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.) Railway Establishment Code : Rules 219(g) and 321Hnterpretation and applicability of C Service Law-Selection-Awarding preferential marks for seniority-Validity of-Railways-Recruitment of Law Assistants:-Appe//ant securing higher marks in written test and viva voce examination-Contenting respondents ·awarded I 5 marks for seniority-As a result appellant not selected-Challenge to award of 15 marks as discriminatory-Held weightage of marks given was illegal-Non-selection of appellant held arbitrary-Selec- D tion should be done in accordance with criteria laid down in Rule 219 (g}--As contesting respondents were not from the same unit but of different units Rule 320 held inapplicable-Directions to consider selection according to Rules. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5085 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.95 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 1030 of 1992. F C. Sitaramiah and Ms. Vrindha Dhar for the Appellants. G R. Venugopal Reddy, Arvind K. Sharma and Ms. Indra Sawhney for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. ~ I I Though notice has been sent to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, it has • been served only on respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In respect of 5th respondent, neither A.D. card not served letter has been received back. In the cir- H cumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on the 5th 494 I M. RAMJAYARAMv. GEN. MANAGER, so urn CENTRAL RL Y. 495 respondent. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel A The only controversy in this case is : whether the contesting respon- dents are entitled to be given preferential 15 marks over the appellant in selection as Law Assistants. It is an admitted position that in the written examination held by the respondents 1 and 2, the appellant had secured more than 60% in written examination and in viva-voce he had fared well B In view of the fact that the contesting respondents have been assigned 15 marks for their seniority, he could not get selected. The appellant has challenged awarding of 15 marks as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has issued notice on August 28, 1995 to the following effect : C "It would appear that Rule 219 (g) of the Railway Establishment Code provides procedure for selection on the basis of over all merit. The Tribunal in this case proceeded on the basis of awarding marks to find the suitability of the candidates for selection, D awarded 50 per cent of marks to professional ability; personality, academic qualifications, leadership quality - 20 marks; record of service - 15 marks; seniority - 15 marks. The grievances of the petitioner, though he is having requisite five years service other persons, having higher scale of pay is preferred. He cannot be discriminated on the basis of having higher scale of pay and E seniority cannot be adjudged on that basis. It is contended by Mr. C. Sitaramiah, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the seniority has to be adjudged with reference to the length of service but not on the basis of scale of pay being drawn and the persons drawing higher scale of pay cannot be put above the F candidates who are drawing lesser scale of pay by reason of the fact that the persons now made in the list have been drawn from different sources ...... disability and discrimination to some of the departments. The test laid down is arbitrary and unconstitutional. To consider this question, notice is issued 11 • The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit. It is ad- mitted therein that the appellant had secured higher marks in the written G and viva-voce. It is stated that in view of Rule 320 of the Railway Estab- . lishment Code, the respondents are seniors to the appellant. While the appellant is drawing scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040 respondents are drawing H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996)3 S.C.R. A scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2660 and thereby they became seniors. On that premise they were given 15 marks over the appellant. As a consequence, they came to be selected. B c D Rule 320 of the Railway Establishment Code reads as under : "Relative Seniority of Employees in an Intermediate Grade Belonging to o·ifferent Seniority Units Appearing For a Sele
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.