Kollipara Prasad vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 6 October 2026

ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Ms. Shalini Misra, AdministrativeMember)

The instant O.A. is filed by the applicant seeking the following relief: “(i) To declare the action of the respondents in not considering and disposing of the representation dated 29.7.2022 as illegal arbitrary;

ii) call for the records leading to and connected with proceedings issued in No SCR/P/-GNT/210/6/Cadre/Ch.LI/Vol-II dated 11.01.2022, notification issued in No SCR /P/ GNT/ 210/6/ Cadre/Ch.LI/ Vol-III dated 19.01.2022, the panel issued in No SCR/P-GNT/2016/Cadre/Ch. LI/Vol-II dated 30.06 2022, declare and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court; or

iii) in the alternative to declare and set aside the RBE 113 of 2009 (Annexure-5) mandating that the final panel should be drawn up in the order of merit based on aggregate marks for general post as contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court; and

iv) consequently, direct the respondent to revise the panel issued in No SCR/P-GNT/2016/Cadre/Ch. LI/Vol-II dated 30.06 2022 arranging the names of the qualified candidates in the panel in the order of seniority in terms of the notification issued in No.SCR / P/GNT/210/6/ Cadre/ Ch.LI/Vol.-II dated 27.05.2020 and in terms of the law laid down by the Apex court in Shakuntala Sharma Vs. High court of Himachal Pradesh (1994) 2 SCC 411 (Annexure-

11) and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant, are that he is a Loco Pilot (Mail) and belongs to Scheduled Caste. He completed 33 years of service in the loco running cadre and is senior to all the private respondents. The next promotion is to the post of Chief Loco Inspector by way of selection based on seniority-cum-suitability. The 4th respondent issued notification in No. SCR/P-GNT/210/6/Cadre/Ch.LI/Vol.II, dated 27.05.2020, calling volunteers from Loco Running Staff viz., Loco Pilot (Mail), Loco Pilot (Pass) and Loco Pilot (Goods), who have completed 5 lakhs kilometres of actual foot plate

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

duties or have completed 10 years of actual service as Loco Pilots whichever is earlier. The eligibility criteria are to be fulfilled as on the date of notification i.e. 27.05.2020. The said notification categorically stipulated that panel should be formed through a selection process of suitability-cum-Seniority. The applicant, having fulfilled the eligibility criteria, volunteered for the said selection. While so, the 4th respondent, without finalising the selection pursuant to the notification, once again notified the very same 5 (UR) posts in the second notification dated 19.01.2022, notifying UR-6, SC-01 and ST-01 vacancies of Chief Loco Inspectors including the UR-5 vacancies earlier notified after a lapse of about 1 year and 7 months. By virtue of the 2nd notification, the Loco Pilots, who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as on the date of 1st notification i.e. 27.05.2020, were made eligible for the same old UR-5 vacancies contrary to law, that too, without finalising the earlier notification. The applicant averred that the second notification also changed the pattern of selection as general post selection instead of suitability-cum- seniority, contrary to the settled position of law and principle adopted in service jurisprudence for departmental selections, which is either seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority.

3. The applicant has submitted that aggrieved by the issuance of 2nd notification, he filed OA No. 324 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.6.2022, granting liberty to the applicant to take legal recourse, after making representation to the respondents authorities. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, he submitted a representation dated 29.7.2022, addressed to the General Manager, which did not yield any response.

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

According to the applicant, the respondents have cancelled the 1st notification in terms of RBE 80 of 2021. According to the applicant, it is evident from RBE 80 of 2021 dated 01.11.2021 that the said instructions shall be applicable from the date of issue of orders. The notification dated 27.05.2020 was issued much prior to the issuance of RBE 80 of 2021. Therefore, cancellation of the 1st notification is unwarranted and contrary to law. Issuing the second notification re-notifying the very same 5 UR vacancies, without conducting the selections pursuant to the 1st notification, is arbitrary exercise of powers and contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The very issuance of the second notification is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers as it facilitates to bring particular segment of the candidates within the purview of eligibility, and the same is contrary to law.

4. The applicant has further submitted that in the impugned panel dated 30.06.2022, the candidates holding lower posts namely, Loco Pilot (Passenger), were empanelled ignoring him, who is holding higher post of Loco Pilot (Mail) and qualified in selection. The applicant contended it to be contrary to settled principle of merit-cum-seniority applicable to the selection post in service jurisprudence. The Chief Loco Inspector post is a selection post within the normal channel of promotion within the same department. In the selections conducted for filling up the post of Chief Loco Inspectors on Guntakal Division the employees who are found suitable are placed on panel in the order of seniority whereas a contradictory procedure is adopted by the respondents on Guntur Division which is a case of invidious discrimination. Empanelment of the incumbents holding the lower post is also contrary to the law laid down by

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

the Apex Court in Shakuntala Sharma Vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh [(1994) 2 SCC 411] that the incumbents of the higher posts would not be denied for promotion while giving unmerited advantage over them to those holding lower posts.

5. It is also averred by the applicant that even assuming that the selection in question is a general selection for which the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramjayaram’s case is applicable, as stipulated in RBE 80 of 2021, there is no such law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramjayaram Judgment that the panel has to be drawn based on aggregate marks, which is totally misconceived. The Hon’ble Apex Court never declared any law that the final panel has to be drawn based on the aggregate marks. Directing to follow the procedure under RBE No.113 of 2009 mandating that the final panel should be drawn up in the order of merit based on aggregate marks of professional ability and Record of service, doing away with classification of candidates as “outstanding”, is contrary to the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment and contrary to the principle of merit-cum-seniority/seniority-cum-merit in service jurisprudence applicable to departmental selection where the seniority was always given due weightage. Therefore, the panel has to be drawn as per seniority as was done on Guntakal Division in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6. The respondents have filed a detailed reply, opposing the relief sought in this OA. They have submitted that they have issued a notification dated 27.05.2020, for filling up 05 posts of Chief Loco Inspector with the break up - UR-05, and invited volunteers from the Loco Running Staff, who fulfill the

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

eligibility criteria and Panel should be formed through a selection process of suitability-cum-seniority. The applicant responded to the said notification and applied to the said post. Due to COVID pandemic, further process of selection was stalled and remained at the stage of scrutiny of applications. While the selection process was stalled, Railway Board clarified that duty performed by running staff in other capacities like Crew Controllers, Power Controllers and Traction Loco Controllers cannot be treated as actual service as Loco Pilots. Further, Railway Board vide RBE No. 80 of 2021 issued clarification that since the selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector have characteristics of general selection, instructions issued in pursuance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders in M. Ramjayaram case, vide RBE No. 113 of 2009, relating to selection procedure for promotion to General Selection post may be followed in the case of selection for Chief Loco Inspector post as well. Since the notification issued on 27.05.2020, was at the primary stage i.e., scrutiny of application only, and the selection process was indicated to be not in conformity with the latest instructions under RBE No. 80 of 2021, the competent authority had decided to cancel the notification and issue a fresh notification in accordance with the guidelines. The notification was accordingly cancelled on 11.01.2022.

7. The respondents have further submitted that, in the meantime, the posts in the cadre of Chief Loco Inspector were increased from 18 posts to 21 posts due to creation of three posts vide Memorandum dated 08.12.2020. In view of the increased number of posts, a fresh assessment was made for filling up of 08 vacancies (UR-06; SC-01; ST-01). To fill up the said vacancies, a fresh

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

notification dated 19.01.2022 was issued calling volunteers from the Loco Running Staff, who fulfill the eligibility criteria and it was decided to form a panel through a selection process of suitability-cum-merit. The Applicant had also applied again in response to the fresh notification without any protest and availed pre-promotional training given for SC/ST employees as there is an additional vacancy for SC community after reassessment of vacancies. The Applicant was qualified in the exam, but, he was not in the final select list due to his low merit as it was drawn and prepared based on the clarification given by the Railway Board.

8. The respondents have contended that the provision of placement of names on final panel in the order of seniority in the case of General Selection has been struck down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Based on the said guidelines, the Railway Board issued RBE No.113 of 2009, for conducting selection procedure for promotion to General Selection Posts. The respondents have further contended that the selection process and the panel were drawn strictly in accordance with the instructions of Railway Board issued under RBE No. 80 of 2021 and RBE No. 113 of 2009. Having participated in the selection, without protest, the applicant is not entitled to challenge the process after remaining unsuccessful on merit, is the claim of the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he does not wish to file a Rejoinder and is ready to address the arguments.

10. Heard the learnedcounsel on both sides and perused the material placed on record.

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

11. The applicant is a Loco Pilot and belongs to reserved category. When the first notification was issued on 27.05.2020, by the respondents for filling up of vacancies of Chief Loco Inspector in Pay Band Rs.9300-34800/- and GP Rs.4600/Level-7 Pay Matrix of Railway Services (Revised Pay0 Rules, 2016 in Mechanical (Running) Department, Guntur Division, the applicant applied, but, due to Covid pandemic, the further process of selection could not go smoothly and remained at the stage of scrutiny of applications. The respondents have cancelled the above notification and issued second notification on 19.01.2022. In the second notification, it was mentioned that the selection panel will be formed through a selection process of general selection. General selection in Indian Railways is a departmental promotion process used to fill specific quota vacancies (such as certain Station Master or Supervisory roles) by allowing eligible employees from wider or specified feeder grades to compete based on merit and written examination. The suitability should be based on written examination along with APARs, Service Record etc.,. It was also mentioned that in terms of CPO/SC’s Serial Circular Nos.95/2009 and 15/2014, the final panel will be drawn in the order of merit based on the aggregate marks of professional ability (written exam) and record of service. However, the employee must secure a minimum of 60% marks in professional ability and 60% marks in aggregate for being placed in panel. Those securing less than 60% in aggregate will not be considered eligible for inclusion in the panel.

12. In the first notification also, it is mentioned that the selection panel should be formed through a selection process of suitability-cum-seniority. The suitability will be based on written examination along with APARs, Service

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

Record and Driving Record. Written examination is mentioned in both the notifications. But, in the second notification, further clarification has been given by way of aggregate marks etc., but, it is not a new yardstick, but, a reiteration of the RBE No.113/2009 only. As it is clear that both the notifications are not the same due to number of posts being different in both the notifications. There is nothing wrong in cancelling the first notification when the process of selection was held up at the scrutiny of applications stage only. Moreover, the applicant has applied again in the second notification and participated in the selection process, as conducted by the respondents. Therefore, raising objections now hold not much value and credibility.

13. It is also brought out very categorically by the respondents that the selection process, as indicated in the first notification dated 27.05.2020, was not in conformity with RBE No.80/2021. Therefore, the notification was cancelled and fresh notification was issued. The contention of the applicant is that the RBE No.80/2021, categorically mentions that the instructions are applicable from the date of issue of order, but, it is observed by the Tribunal that the RBE No.80/2021 takes reference from RBE No.108/2019, dated 03.07.2019, and also RBE No.113/2009, dated 10.06.2009. Since the selection process in the first notification was at the primary stage only, there is nothing wrong to implement the guidelines as issued in RBE No.80/2021, which is nothing, but, reiteration of the old rules only.

14. RBE No.108/2019, dated 03.07.2019, makes it very clear that a panel should be formed through a selection process of suitability-cum-seniority. The suitability should be based on written examination along with APARs, Service

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

Record and Driving Record. Further, RBE No.113/2009, which is issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.03.1996 in M.Ramjayram v. General Manager, South Central Railway & Others (1996

(1) SC SLJ 536), that “it is illegal to award marks for ‘Seniority’, for promotion to General Posts i.e., those outside the normal channel of promotion, for which eligible volunteers are called from different categories whether in the same department, or, from different departments”, reads as under: “3. The matter has, accordingly been carefully considered by the Board and it has been decided that in cases of promotion to General Posts in which candidates are called from different categories, whether in the same department or from different departments and where zone of consideration, is not confined to three times the number of staff to be empanelled, panels should be strictly prepared as per merit, with reference to marks obtained by the candidates in 'Professional ability' and 'Record of Service'. Subject to usual relaxation for SC/ST staff, wherever permissible, those securing less than 60% in 'Professional ability' and 60% in aggregate, will not be considered eligible for inclusion in the panel. Further, the service records of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 60% marks in 'Professional ability', shall be assessed. Since the final panel has to be drawn on the basis of merit, there will be no scope for erstwhile provision of placement of candidates who secure 80% or more marks, classified as 'Outstanding', on the top of the panel.”

15. The applicant cannot claim to have selected in the first notification because, no selection procedure was done. All the applications were at the scrutiny stage only. Scrutiny of application cannot be taken, in any manner, as complete selection process. Therefore, the contention of the applicant is wrong that in first notification, he was selected. Further, it is to be noted that though the applicant is mentioning that he has submitted representation 29.07.2022, but, the same is not annexed to the OA.

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

16. The Railway Board had issued modified selection procedure to such General Posts, vide letter No.E(NG)I-98/PM1/11, dated 16.11.1998, which is incorporated in Para 219 (j) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, as follows: “The final panel should be drawn up in order of merit based on aggregate marks of professional ability and record of service. However, a candidate must secure a minimum of 60% marks in professional ability and 60% marks in the aggregate, for being placed in the panel.” Thus, it is very clear that the Chief Loco Inspector post is a selection post and these guidelines are applicable on the applicant because of the nature of posts being general.

17. The RBE No.119/2019, mentions that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Writ Petition No.4746/2002, vide its judgment dated 09.04.2008, has struck down the provision of placement of names on final panel in the order of seniority. The Hon’ble High Court had held that in such General Selections, candidates are not from the same seniority units and there is no common seniority list on the basis of which their names can be placed in the order of seniority, therefore, promotion to such posts should be made only on the basis of merit, uninfluenced by seniority of the candidates. The Hon’ble High Court have accordingly declared the provision of arranging the names on final panel in the order of seniority in General Selections as wholly illegal and arbitrary. The Special Leave Petition No.16774/2008 against the Hon’ble High Court’s order has been dismissed on 05.01.2009. Following this, the Railway Board took a policy decision that in cases of promotion to General Posts in which candidates are called from different categories, whether in the same department

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

or from different departments and where zone of consideration, is not confined to three times the number of staff to be empanelled, panels should be strictly prepared as per merit, with reference to marks obtained by the candidates in ‘Professional ability’ and ‘Record of Service’.

18. As submitted by the respondents, these instructions have superseded all previous instructions and are being followed scrupulously. In the present case also, the applicant applied in the second notification and availed pre- promotional training given for SC/ST employees. But, he was not in the final select list due to his low merit. The applicant qualified in the written exam.Qualifying the examination means meeting the minimum passing score. It does not mean that the applicant got selected, as contended by him.

19. The contention of the applicant that the second notification is wrong and issued with vested interest to facilitate particular segment of the candidates is baseless and not at all correct. His contentions are based only on presumptions and assumptions. If, in view of the applicant, the second notification was wrong, he should have not participated in the selection process, as contemplated in the second notification.

20. It is to be noted that the selection to the post of Chief Loco Inspector have characteristics of general selection. The RBE No.113/2009, which is issued in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 05.03.1996 in the matter of M.Ramjayram v. General Manager, South Central Railway & Others (1996 (1) SC SLJ 536), holds good. The applicant had earlier filed OA.No.324/2022, without giving any representation to the respondents, and on this basis, this Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2022,

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location:

disposed of the said OA. This time too, the applicant has not given any representation, but, directly filed the OA. On this ground, the respondents have prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA.

21. Another contention of the applicant that the Guntakal Division has completed the selection as per the first notification, has no relevance because the notification for promotion is issued division-wise and as submitted by the respondents, due to Covid pandemic, the Guntur Division could not process the applications, the applicant appeared in the second notification selection process and on failing to secure ‘selection’, he approached the Tribunal as an afterthought. Cancellation of the first notification by the respondents is correct and justified. The relief sought by the applicant in this OA, to quash the second notification dated 19.01.2022, is not justified, as elaborated above. The applicant is also praying in the alternative to declare and set aside RBE No.113/2009. The said RBE No.113/2009 was issued after carefully considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same is being implemented since then. There is no necessity to revise the panel because selection is done following scrupulously the guidelines in vogue.

22. With the above deliberations, this Tribunal finds no merit in the OA, and the OA is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. All miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHALINI MISRA)

(MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pv/dsn/

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=

Location: