PREM KUMAR VERMA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 15-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PREM KUMAR VERMA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1998 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Railway Establishment Manual: Para 303 (a) [as it stood before 1990 
amendment! 
C 
Service Rules-Amendment of-Pre-amended and post-amended rules-
Application-Seniority-1 nter se-Determination of-Selection of Depot 
Storekeepers was completed before amendment of rule-Held : Unamended 
rule, as it stood on the date of selection, would govern the case of inter se 
seniority-Administrative Law. 
D 
The Railway Recruitment Board selected candidates for the post of 
Depot Storekeeper. These selected candidates were sent for training in four 
different batches and after completion of training they started discharging 
their duties. The Railway authorities drew up the seniority list of the said E 
Deputy Storekeepers in accordance with paragraph 303(a) of the Railway 
Establishment Manual as it stood prior to its amendment on the basis of the 
merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the training period. The 
appellants having obtained higher marks at the examination were shown as 
senior to the respondents nos. 5 to 9. However, paragraph 303(a) of the 
Manual was later on amended which laid down that candidates sent for F 
training in a later batch would rank junior to those who were sent for 
training in an earlier batch. 
Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid seniority list on the ground G 
that they were sent for training in the first batch itself and completed the 
training much earlier than the appellants and, therefore, they were entitled 
- "" 
to be declared senior to the appellants. The Tribunal allowed the application. 
Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the unamended H 
763 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 2 S.C.R. 
A paragraph 303(a) of the Manual, as it stood on the date of selection, would 
govern the inter se seniority and not the amended provisions and, therefore, 
the appellants were rightly shown as senior to respondents nos. 5 to 9. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The amendment to paragraph 303(a) of the Railway 
Establishment Manual will have no application and it is the unamended 
paragraph 303(a) of the Manual, as it stood on the date of selection, which 
would govern the case of inter se seniority. According to paragraph 303 
where candidates are required to undergo some training after being selected 
C through Railway Service Commission on any other Recruiting Authority 
their seniority is determined on the basis of their respective merit at the 
examination held at the end of the training period and where candidates do 
not have to undergo any training then the seniority is determined on the 
basis of the merit assigned by the Commission or other Recruiting Authority. 
D In the present case the candidates had to undergo training in batches. Their 
seniority had rightly been determined by the Railway Authority on the basis 
of their respective merit obtained at the examination held at the end of the 
training period. The Tribunal committed error by altering the said seniority 
on the basis of a Rule, which was not in existence on the date the vacancy 
arose and on the date when the selection was completed. [767-E-H; 768-A) 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2250 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.95 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Chandigarh, in O.A. No. 470/PB of 1994. 
Ms. Shyamla Pappu, M.R. Krishnamurti, Pramod Sharma and Rajesh for 
the Appellants. 
S. Wasim A. Quadri, Harinder Mohan Singh and Arvind Kumar Sharma 
G for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench dated 20th October, 1995 in O.A. 
H No. 470 of 1994. The question for consideration is whether the inter se 
• 
P.K. VERMA v. U.0.1. [PATTANAIK, J.] 
765 
seniority of the appellants had been rightly determined by the Railway A 
Authorities as per para 303 (a) of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Manual') and was illegally interfered with by the Tribunal 
on the basis of a provision which came into existence subsequently. 
Admittedly, vacancy arose in the post of Depot Store Keepe1 Grade lJI B 
in Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala, in July 1989, and advertisemen

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