M.S. USMANI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 14-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M.S. USMAN! AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1994 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Para 123-
Recruitment of Traffic Apprentice-Employees selected and appointed by a 
competitive examination against I 0% quota reserved for graduates-
Promoted to a higher scale of pay-Whether. could be reverted 
subsequently on assumption that the entire process of selection and 
appointment was against the rules-Held Reversion order not only unjust 
but vitiated by error of law. 
In 1968 the Railway Board introduced a scheme under para 123 of 
the Indian Railway Establishment Manual in which. provision was 
·made for recruitment of Traffic Apprentices to the extent of 25% in 
various supervisory posts in the Transportation Department of the 
Railway and 15% through agency of the Railway Service commission 
and 10% from amongst the serving non-ministerial graduates of 
Transportation Department, through open market to be filled on the 
basis of limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The 
Departmental examination was to be conducted strictly in order of 
merit by subjecting candidates to w.ritten test and viva-voce. The 
Railway Board issued another letter communicating its decision that 
10% of the annual vacancies in the category of Section Controllers, 
Station Masters (SMS) and Assistant Station Master's (ASMS) grade 
Rs. 470".'700 and Rs. 455-700 were to be filled in through departmental 
competitive Examination from Class-III non-Ministerial staff who were 
graduates .and less than 33 years of age. Selection was done 
accordingly. 
The selection list itself indicated the designation of candidates and 
the category for which th.ey were selected. The list also contained names 
of those ASMS who were in the scale of Rs. 425-640 but as consequence 
of Selection they were placed in the scale of Rs. 455-700 as S.M. Many 
of the appellants so selected and appointed were further promoted as 
SMSITIS in the scale of 55-750 (revised scale Rs. 1600-2660). 
572 
M.S. USMANI v. U. 0. I. 
573 
In August i983 Grade C and D posts in the Northern Railway were A 
restructured with reference to cadre strength as it existed on 1.8.83. It 
provided for grant of proforma benefit from 1.8.1982 to the staff 
eligible for higher grade. Consequent to the restructuring all these 
ASMs who were working in the grade of Rs. 330-560 and were 
graduates and had worked earlier with appellants but had not 
appeared in the competitive examination or had appeared and ·failed B 
stood upgraded and were placed in to scale of Rs. 425-700 for ASMs. 
In 1987 the appellants were promoted in the higher grade of Rs. 
1600-2660. Some of them were appointed as TIS. In May 1987 the 
Railway Board issued a circular that fresh recruitment to the post of 
Traffic Apprentice would be placed in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660, C 
whereas those who were already serving as Traffic Apprentices shall be 
in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Therefore for the same post o! Traffic 
Apprentice two scales were provided which was challenged before the 
Central Administrative Tribunals in different States on the ground of 
discrimination. The Tribunal upheld the challenge and the order 
became final as S.LP against that order was dismissed. 
D 
After 4 years such of those ASMs, who as a result of restructuring 
were allowed the same scale as was applicable to S.Ms approached the 
Railway Authorities through Railway men's Union claiming that the 
post of SMs in the post of Rs. 1600-2660 be filed in by invoking the 
principle of pro-rata. The same was rejected. Thereafter the Union . E 
approached the Head Quarters which rejected the claim holding that 
the Selection of the appellants in September 1984 was illegal, 
restructuring having been done on 1.8.83. In consequence of this 
decision the appellants were reverted to the grade Rs. 1400-2300 and 
were placed below all the ASMs in the panel on 1.8.83 for the purpose 
of seniority. 
F 
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants approached the 
Tribunal. The Respondents got impleaded in the petition at their 
instance. Tribunal rejected the contention of appellant and dismissed 
the application against which the present appeal have been preferred. 
Allowing appeals, this Court 
HELD :1. The selection in 1982 was held for the posts earmarked 
G 
for SM. The Selection and appointment of the appellants, therefore 
could not be said to be against rules. Anot

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.