T. VIJAYAN AND ORS . versus DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 05-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-
• 
T. VIJAYAN AND ORS . 
A 
v. 
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Railway Establishment Manual: Paragraphs 216 and 302. 
Seniority-First Fireman-Direct recruits vis-a-vis Promotees-Ad hoc c 
service-Reckoning of-Some employees were promoted as First Firemen on 
ad hoc basis in accordance with para 216 and subsequently regularised-
However, some direct recruits were also appointed and regularised as First 
Firemen prior thereto-Appointment letters to the direct recruits clearly indi-
cated that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of selection for the 
D 
promotion quota which was already in progress-Provisional seniority list 
showed direct recruits below promotees-Validity of-Held: Jn the circum-
stances of the case, promotees entitled to count their entire ad hoc service 
towards their seniority-Direct recruits though appointed prior to the promotees 
cannot claim seniority over them-Hence, provisional seniority list, valid. 
E 
Seniority-Ad hoc promotion-In accordance with Rules and subse-
, ,,. 
quently regularised-Held: Such ad hoc service counts towards seniority. 
The appellants-direct recruits were appointed as First Firemen after 
two years' training. The letters of appointment issued to the appellants 
F 
clearly indicated that their seniority was subject to the finalisation of 
selection for the promotion quota, which was in progress. The respond-
ents-promotees were promoted to the post of First Firemen in accordance 
with paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual o~ ad hoc basis, 
due to exigencies of service, prior to the appointment of the appellants. 
The ad hoc promotion of the respondents was regularised after the ap· 
G 
pointment of the appellants. 
-:"' 
A provisional seniority list of First Firemen was published wherein 
all the appellants were shown below the respondents. This seniority list 
w~s unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
H 
971 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the appellants it~ wa~ contended that the appellants 
B 
were appointed as First Firemen prior to the regularisation of the re· 
spondents and, therefore, the appellants would rank senior to the respond· 
ents in terms of paragraph 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual. 
The following question arose before this Court : 
Whether the respondents are entitled to reckon the periOd of ad hoc 
service towards their seniority and whether they have been properly shown 
as senior to the appellants? 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1. Paragraph 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual 
indicates that ad hoc promotion is permissible pending regular selection. 
Once ad hoc promotion is found to be permissible under the Rules and the 
respondents were promoted on ad hoc basis in the exigencies of service, 
pending regular selection, which, incidentally, took sufficient time as the 
respondents who were on official duty "on line" were not available at one 
point or at one time to facilitate the selection, the entire period of ad hoc 
service will have to be counted towards their seniority, particularly as all 
the respondents were duly selected and their services were also regular-
ised. The concerned employees including the respondents had already 
been alerted for the process of selection. While making direct recruitment 
it was given out to the present appellants that their absorption and senior-
ity was subject, inter alia, to the finalisation of the selection to the post of 
First Firemen which was in progress. The appellants were selected and 
were put on two years' training as Apprentices whei;eafter they were 
absorbed and were issued separate and individual appointment letters in 
which it was clearly mentioned that their seniority was subject to the 
finalisation of the selection for promotion to the post of First Fireman 
which was in progress. The appellants, in this situation, cannot claim 
seniority over the respondents who had already been appointed to the 
posts of First Fireman on ad hoc basis and were after due selection regu· 
Iarised on those posts. [979C-G] 
Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of 
Maharashtra, {1990) 2 SCC 715; Keshav Dev v; State of U.P.; L. 
H 
Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur, [1999] 8 SCC 287 and Ajit Kumar 
," .. 
• 
T. VIJAYAN v. DIVISIO

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