Date of the Judgment: 21st October 2008
Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal
Can seniority be claimed retroactively by railway employees appointed years after the initial selection process due to alleged malpractices? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a set of appeals concerning the selection of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category employees in the Railways. The core dispute revolved around employees appointed in 1994 claiming seniority over those appointed in 1985, based on a reassessment of marks and alleged irregularities in the original selection.
The bench comprised Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal.
Case Background:
In 1984, the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) conducted a selection process for the Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category. A written test was held on May 26, 1985, followed by interviews on September 25, 1985. Following the selection, allegations of malpractices arose, leading to the publication of a list of approximately 1000 suspected candidates.
Several non-selected candidates filed representations with the RRB, which were followed by Original Applications (OAs) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Calcutta. The CAT directed the consideration of these cases, ordering fresh interviews and subsequent appointments. Consequently, some candidates were appointed based on these CAT directives.
On February 17, 1986, the Additional Executive Director (Estt.)(T&MPP) communicated to the Chairman of the RRB regarding candidates who had secured more marks than those suspected of malpractices. The communication suggested a careful reconsideration of these candidates and the restoration of their rights by including their names in the panel at appropriate positions.
Based on this communication, certain respondents were appointed in 1994 and subsequently claimed seniority over candidates appointed in 1985. This claim was based on the 1986 letter, which suggested their inclusion in the panel at appropriate positions. The CAT directed the railway authorities to determine the specific position of these respondents in the panel for inter se seniority determination, considering their aggregate marks relative to those already appointed.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1984 | Selection process for Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category initiated by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB). |
| May 26, 1985 | Written test held for the selection process. |
| September 25, 1985 | Interviews conducted for the selection process. |
| Post-Selection (1985) | Allegations of malpractices arise, leading to the publication of a list of approximately 1000 suspected candidates. |
| 1991 | Chitra Lekha Chakraborty (respondent in SLP(C) 7686/04) files a representation to the Railway authorities after not being selected in 1984. |
| February 17, 1986 | The Additional Executive Director (Estt.)(T&MPP) communicates to the Chairman of the RRB about candidates with higher marks than those suspected of malpractices. |
| 1994 | Based on CAT directives and the 1986 communication, some respondents are appointed. |
| January 8, 1996 | The Original Application (OA) filed by Chitra Lekha Chakraborty is disposed of with directions to specify her position in the panel for seniority determination. |
| 1991 | Chitra Lekha Chakraborty files representation to Railway authorities. |
Course of Proceedings:
The order of the CAT was challenged before the High Court, arguing that the respondents, appointed in 1994, could not claim seniority over those appointed in 1985. However, the High Court upheld the CAT’s order. These High Court judgments were then challenged in the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
In the case of Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 7686/04, the respondent, Chitra Lekha Chakraborty, filed a representation in 1991 after not being selected in 1984. After not receiving a response, she filed an Original Application before the CAT, Calcutta, which was allowed. During the pendency of the OA, the Chairman of the RRB directed the respondent’s appointment, which was carried out. The OA was disposed of on January 8, 1996, with directions to specify her position in the panel for seniority determination. The Union of India then filed a review petition before the CAT, which was rejected for being filed beyond the prescribed 30-day period under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. This rejection was challenged before the High Court, which confirmed the CAT’s order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework:
The case involves consideration of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which prescribes a 30-day period for filing a review application before the CAT. The applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of the prescribed limitation period under certain circumstances, was also in question.
The court also considered Rule 303, which regulates the seniority of non-gazetted railway employees.
Arguments:
Arguments on behalf of the Union of India:
- The review petition filed by the appellant should have been allowed because there was sufficient cause for extending the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 17 of the 1987 Rules.
- Relied on the decision in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept. & Ors., reported in 2008(7) SCC p.169, arguing that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be applicable.
- The records relating to the 1984 selection were not available due to an accidental fire.
- The respondent could not produce any document showing her aggregate marks compared to other candidates already appointed.
- There was no common panel prepared conjoining the selection made in 1984 and subsequent appointments, making seniority determination impossible.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents:
- The letter dated 17.2.1986 written by the Addl.Executive Director to the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, expressed the opinion that in case the representations filed by these candidates are allowed their places in the seniority is to be given by interpolating in the seniority list which has already been made.
- The appellant was bound by the statement in the letter dated 17.2.1986.
- Relied on Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported (1978) 1 SCC p.405, arguing that a statutory functionary’s order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons. This was further supported by State Govt. Houseless Employees’ Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC p.610, Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003(6) SCC p.545 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., 2005(7) SCC p.627.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
- Whether the review petition filed by the Union of India should have been allowed despite being filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
- Whether the respondents, appointed in 1994, can claim seniority over candidates appointed in 1985 based on a reassessment of marks and alleged irregularities in the original selection process.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the review petition filed by the Union of India should have been allowed despite being filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. | No. | The High Court was justified in concluding that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application filed beyond 30 days, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to a petition filed under Rule 17. |
| Whether the respondents, appointed in 1994, can claim seniority over candidates appointed in 1985 based on a reassessment of marks and alleged irregularities in the original selection process. | No, they are entitled to seniority only from the date they joined the service. | There was no common panel, and the records relating to the 1984 selection were not available. The respondents could not produce documents showing their aggregate marks compared to other candidates already appointed. The seniority of candidates appointed in 1985 cannot be disturbed without hearing those candidates. |
Authorities:
The court considered the following authorities:
- Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept. & Ors., reported in 2008(7) SCC p.169 (Supreme Court of India): The appellant relied on this case to argue that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be applicable to the review petition.
- Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported (1978) 1 SCC p.405 (Supreme Court of India): The respondents relied on this case to argue that a statutory functionary’s order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons.
- State Govt. Houseless Employees’ Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC p.610 (Supreme Court of India): The respondents cited this case in support of the principle established in Mohinder Singh Gill.
- Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2003(6) SCC p.545 (Supreme Court of India): The respondents cited this case in support of the principle established in Mohinder Singh Gill.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., 2005(7) SCC p.627 (Supreme Court of India): The respondents cited this case in support of the principle established in Mohinder Singh Gill.
- Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This rule prescribes a 30-day period for filing a review application before the CAT.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This section allows for the extension of the prescribed limitation period under certain circumstances.
- Rule 303: This rule regulates the seniority of non-gazetted railway employees.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered the following judgment:
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The unavailability of records relating to the 1984 selection process.
- The respondents’ inability to produce documents showing their aggregate marks compared to other candidates already appointed.
- The absence of a common panel conjoining the selection made in 1984 and subsequent appointments.
- The fact that the seniority of candidates appointed in 1985 could not be disturbed without hearing those candidates.
Key Takeaways:
- Railway employees appointed after a significant delay due to alleged irregularities in the initial selection process are not automatically entitled to seniority over those appointed earlier.
- The availability of records and the ability to compare the marks of candidates are crucial for determining seniority in such cases.
- The seniority of existing employees cannot be disturbed without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the principles governing seniority disputes in the context of railway employee selections, emphasizing the importance of maintaining proper records, ensuring fairness to existing employees, and adhering to established rules and procedures.