NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 09-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA AND ANR. 
UNION OF JNDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]. 
Service Law : 
Railway Board Circular dated 25.6.1985-Clause 5.1-Promotion-
C Employees due for promotion, eligible for promotion without any written or 
viva-voce test-Appella111s promoted to Fireman Grade A 011 scrutiny of 
service record5 without any written test-Written test held subsequently-
Promotees qualified the test and were also promoted as Fireman Grade A-
Impugned seniority list placed such promotees higher than appellants-
D 
Tribunal upheld seniority list-On appeal Held, Board took positive decision 
lo pl'omote employees due for promotion on scrutiny of records without any 
test-Promotion of appellants was legal and proper as it was in accordance 
with the Circular-Impugned seniority list quashed as appellants were senior 
to promotees. 
E 
Seniority-Seniority in a particular Grade has to be determined on the 
basis of length of continuous service in that Grade-Appellants were senior 
to promotees as per the Circular-No rules placed showing that persons 
qualifying written test for promotion would get seniority over appe/lants-
Fresh seniority list placing appellants above promotees to be drawn. 
F 
Appellants were promoted to the post of Fireman Grade C and thereafter 
to Grade B. They were further promoted to Grade A as per clause 5.1 of a 
Railway Board circular dated 25.6.1985, which did away with the necessity 
of holding any written or viva-voce test for such promotions. Respondents 
later on held a written test and appointed the persons who qualified, to the 
post of Grade A. However, these promotees were shown higher up than the 
G appellants in the impugned seniority list, which was upheld by the Tribunal. 
Hence this appeal. 
Appellants contended that they were legally promoted as clause 5.1 of 
the circular dated 25.6.1985 entitled them to promotion without any written 
I-I or viva-Foce test; and that promotces selected subsequently could never be 
636 
f 
>--
N.P. SINHA v. U.0.1. 
637 
placed above them. 
Respondents contended that the promotccs were selected after qualifying 
in a written test in terms of a previous circular dated 17.12.1982 and on 
being found more efficient were rightly placed above the appellants. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. As per clause 5.1 of the Circular dated 25.6.1985, the 
Railway Board had taken a positive decision that when an employee is due 
for promotion to only one grade above the grade of the post held by him, 
promotion would be only on the basis of scrutiny of service records and 
A 
B 
without holding any test. 1639-FI 
C 
2. Fireman Grade A is one grade above the post of Fireman Grade B. 
Therefore, in terms of clause 5.1 of he Circular the appellants were entitled 
to be promoted to the post of Grade A only on scrutiny of their service 
records and it was so done by the respondents as they promoted them to the 
post of Fireman Grade A as per the said Circular. The promotion of the D 
appellants was legal and proper. 1639-G) 
3. Seniority in a particular Grade has to be determined on the basis 
-< 
of length of continuous service in that Grade. Appellants were legally promoted 
to Grade A, whereas the promotees were promoted subsequently. It is an 
admitted position that appellants were senior to them in all the grades of E 
posts of Firemen. Moreover, no rules were placed to show that persons 
promoted on the basis of written test would get seniority over the persons 
promoted under the said Circular. The impugned seniority list where the 
appellants were shown junior to the promotees is contrary to the legal 
"'--. 
position and is accordingly quashed. Respondent shall draw up a fresh F 
~ 
seniority list placing the appellants above the promotees i11 the post of 
Fireman Grade A. 1640-A-CI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10912 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.45 of the Central Administrative G 
Tribunal at Patna in O.A. No. 502 of 1994. 
P.S. Mishra, Vishnu Sharma, Santosh Mishra, U. Mishra, S.B. Upadhyay 
·and Ramji Prasad for the Appellants. 
K.C. Kaushik for Arvi.nd Kumar Sharma and D.S. Mahra for the H 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] 3 S.C.R. 
A Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. In this appeal the two appellants have assailed the order 
dated 26.05.1995 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The 
B Tribunal rejected the prayer of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.