DHEERAJ BHATIA vs WESTERN RAILWAY on 12 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Office of General Manager (E), HQ, Western Railway Mumbai. The applicant herein working as Group C staff of DMS cadre has not been found eligible for Group B post of AMM for selection under LDCE – 30% quota in respect to notification dated 19.12.2025 since the applicant has not completed 5 years service as DMS in Western Railway and his immediate senior date of P ANUKUMA

::2 ::

appointment is 15.06.2020 therefore, he is not eligible to participate in the said LDCE, and the copy of the said order has been supplied to the applicant vide by the respondent No.2 i.e. Dy. Chief Material Manager, Dahod, Western Railway order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A/1 Colly.), as well being aggrieved with the list of Not Eligible employee notified by the respondent No.1 vide communication dated 21.03.2026 (qua the applicant) has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 seeking reliefs as prayed for in para 8 & 9 of the OA seeking relief to quash and set aside the impugned orders (Annexure A/1 to A/3) and direct the respondents to declare the applicant as eligible for AMM (LDCE -30%) selection under notification dated 19.12.2025 and permit him to participate in the CBT examination and subsequent selection stages. The applicant has also sought interim relief to direct the respondents to permit the applicant to appear in the written test for the post of AMM.

2. The brief facts of the case is as under : 2.1 The Applicant is working as Depot Material Superintendent (DMS), Electric Loco Shed, Vadodara Yard (ELS/BRCY). 2.2 The Applicant initially joined the Indian Railways on 04.03.2016 under South Western Railway (SWR) against the Direct Recruitment quota through RRB Bangalore as Depot Material Superintendent (DMS). 2.3 Thereafter, the applicant was promoted to the higher grade of Chief Depot Material Superintendent (CDMS), Level-7 w.e.f. 26.02.2020 and worked in the said grade up to 07.06.2021. Thus, the Applicant was working in Level-6 and above continuously in Stores Department, fulfilling the eligibility requirement of minimum service for participation in promotion/selection to Group 'B' post of AMM. 2.4 As per the policy of the Railways i.e. Inter Railway Transfer (IRRT) Own Request, the applicant was transferred from South P ANUKUMA

::3 ::

Western Railway to Western Railway and joined Western Railway Stores Department on 10.06.2021. 2.5 On account of his own request transfer to Western Railway, he was placed in the initial grade i.e. Level-6 and was assigned bottom seniority in the new unit, as per prevailing rules. 2.6 It is submitted that the transfer of the applicant from SWR to WR was on personal ground and not due to any disciplinary or adverse reason. 2.7 The respondents issued a combined notification dated 19.12.2025 whereby it was proposed to conduct selection for various Group 'B' posts including Assistant Materials Manager (AMM) (LDCE-30%) in Stores Department for the vacancy cycle 01.01.2025 to 31.12.2026 through Centralized Computer-Based Test (CBT) (Annexure A/3). 2.8 Further, it is submitted that as per the said notification, to participate in the said selection, eligibility conditions prescribed for Group 'C' employees is that they shall be working in Level-6 (7th CPC) and above and having 05 years of non-fortuitous service as on 01.01.2025. 2.9 According to the applicantas on the crucial eligibility date i.e. 01.01.2025, he had already completed total service of about 8 years and 9 months in Stores Department in Level-6 and above, out of which, he had served about 3 years and 6 months in Western Railway, Stores Department and he had rendered 5 years and 3 months in Level-6 (7th CPC) service under South Western Railway, Stores Department. Therefore, the Applicant had already fulfilled the eligibility requirement of having more than 5 years of non-fortuitous services in Level-6 and above in Stores Department for participating in selection for the post of AMM under 30% LDCE quota in terms of vacancy notification dated 19.12.2025. P ANUKUMA

::4 ::

2.10 In response to the said notification, the Applicant, being eligible and possessing requisite service and experience, duly applied online through HRMS portal within the prescribed time limit for participating in the said LDCE selection for AMM (Group 'B'). 2.11 The Respondents issued a provisional eligibility list vide letter dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure A/2) wherein the Respondents published the provisional list of “eligible” and “not eligible candidates” for the post of AMM (LDCE-30%) selection. The applicant‟s name was declared as "Not Eligible", despite the fact that he had been continuously working in Railways since 2016 and had already completed more than the requisite length of service in Stores Department. 2.12 Being declared as “Not eligible”, the Applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 28.01.2026 addressed to the APO/Gaz/CCG through proper channel, requesting to reconsider the decision declaring him „not eligible‟. In the said representation, the Applicant clearly mentioned his entire service particulars, including the fact that he joined Railways on 04.03.2016 and that he has completed more than 8 years service in Level-6 and above in Stores Department. (Annexure A/4). Further, it is also stated in the said representation that as per Railway Rules and judicial pronouncements, the service rendered in previous Railway zone cannot be ignored for determining eligibility for promotion/selection, particularly where the employee remains in continuous service under the same employer i.e. Indian Railways. The Applicant also stated that he was being wrongly declared short of service by about 1 year and 6 months. In support of his grievance made in his representation, he has annexed copy of the relied upon judgments such as judgment of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs Dalip Kumar, (ii) judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Anr. vs Rajesh Kumar Patidar & Anr., and (iii) judgment of Hon'ble CAT Patna P ANUKUMA

::5 ::

Bench in case of Arun Kumar Singh v/s. Union of India. The Applicant submitted that these judgments clearly mandate counting of past services rendered in previous Railway for eligibility. The applicant has also highlighted in this representation that earlier the respondents declared him to be eligible for participation in the selection process for the post of AMM (LDCE - 30%) in respect to the vacancy notification year 2022. Accordingly, he participated in written test held on 18.07.2022. As per the result declared by the respondents on 16.01.2023 (Annexure A/5), the applicant herein since obtained highest marks in the said written test his name was placed at Sl.No.1 in the list notified on 16.01.2023. Thereafter, he reached upto interview stage but could not clear the same at the relevant time. It is further submitted that again the respondents issued notification for the post of AMM LDCE - 30% selection in the year 2024 and again, he was allowed to participate in the said selection and reached upto interview stage. Therefore, the Applicant's eligibility had already been recognized by the Respondents in earlier round of examination and there was no justification to treat him as „not eligible‟ now. (Annexure A/6). Accordingly, the applicant requested the respondents that since he was found eligible for selection for the post of Group B in the year 2022, his subsequent application to participate in respect to vacancy notification dated 19.12.2025 ought not to be denied since there is no change in the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the previous notification of the year 2022 and the present notification dated 19.11.2025. 2.13 However, without considering the aforesaid representation of the applicant in its true spirit the Respondents rejected the request of the applicant to participate him in 30% quota vide impugned order dated 10.02.2026 and vide communication dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure A/1 Colly.) by assigning the reason that he has not completed five years of service as DMS in WR, moreover as per P ANUKUMA

::6 ::

APO/DHD letter dated 29.01.2026 his immediate senior's date of appointment is 15.06.2020. Therefore, he is not eligible for the post of AMM under LDCE (30%). Hence, this OA.

3. In support of the prayer, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under: 3.1 It is submitted that the Respondents have wrongly interpreted the eligibility condition by restricting the counting of qualifying service only to the service rendered in Western Railway, while illegally ignoring the service rendered in South Western Railway, even though the Applicant remained in continuous service under the Indian Railway and continued in the same Store department/ grade. 3.2 The respondents failed to consider the fact as stated in the representation that for the LDCE 30% quota notification of the year 2022 and 2024 by considering the total service rendered by the applicant in Group „C‟ cadre and the grade had declared him eligible and allowed to participate in the selection process. However, in absence any change in the eligibility criteria in the vacancy notification 19.12.2025 and the identical and similarly eligibility criteria has been mentioned as stipulated in earlier vacancy notification of the year 2022 and 2024, the reason assign by the respondents in the impugned order (Annexure A/1) to reject the claim of the applicant to allow him to participate in the selection process for the post of AMM (LDCE 30%) for the year 2025 is not tenable and the same is required to quash and set aside. 3.3 Learned counsel submits that declaring the Applicant as "Not Eligible" vide impugned order dated 17.02.2026 is illegal arbitrary, and discriminatory and contrary to the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification dated 19.12.2025 since the Applicant has completed far more than the required five years of non-fortuitous service in Level-6 and above, and therefore the Respondents have acted contrary to the recruitment/promotion rules. P ANUKUMA

::7 ::

3.4 It is submitted that the Respondents acted in arbitrary manner by wrongly counting the period of qualifying service only to the period served in Western Railway and have illegally ignored the Applicant's past qualifying service rendered in South Western Railway. Such interpretation is not only unreasonable but also defeats the very object of the LDCE which is intended to provide promotional opportunity based on merit. 3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Respondents have failed to appreciate that the Applicant is not claiming any seniority advantage in the new unit, but only claiming that his past service in Level-6 and above should be counted for eligibility. 3.6 Further, it is submitted that the Respondents have failed to appreciate that eligibility for appearing in an examination is distinct from seniority. Even if the Applicant is placed at the bottom of the seniority list due to a transfer on request, his qualifying service cannot be wiped out. Denial of eligibility amounts to punishment without the authority of law. The Respondents have acted in violation of the Railway Board's own circulars and clarifications, wherein it is recognized that service rendered in a previous unit can be counted for eligibility in promotion, subject to conditions. The Respondents have not conducted any objective examination of the Applicant's service record and have rejected eligibility mechanically. 3.7 Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the RBE No. 216/ 2019 and Master Circular No. 68 it is mentioned that for Group 'B' selection (30% LDCE quota) Group C' employees working in Level-6 and above in pay matrix with 5 years of non- fortuitous service in Level 6 and above in Pay Matrix (including non- fortuitous service rendered in the corresponding pre-revised grade pay) will be eligible whereas there is no any other condition mentioned in the aforesaid Railway Board Order and Master Circular (Annexure A/8). P ANUKUMA

::8 ::

3.8 Further, it is stated that the respondent relied on the Railway Board's RBE No. RBE 40/2008 dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure A/9). The extracts of Railway Board's letter RBE No.40/2008 reads as under :- "Instructions have been issued under Board's letter No. E(NG)I- 2006/ PMl/5 dated 21.03.2006 (Bahri's 34/2006 page-29), whereby, in partial modification of instruction issued under Board 's letter no. E ( NG )I-96/ PM 4/14 dated 17.4.1997 it has been decided that in case of person transfer on request basis to a new unit in the same category of posts, and assigned bottom seniority therein, the service rendered by them in the previous unit may be reckoned for determining their eligibility wherever a minimum length of service is prescribed as a condition for promotion in the new unit, subject to the condition that the length of service which is so allowed to be counted does not exceed the length of service of their immediate senior in the new unit." 3.9 Learned counsel for the applicant by relying upon the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by CAT Patna Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 744/2023 (Anil Kumar Singh & Anr. V/s. Union of India & Ors.) submit that in the said order by referring the instruction contained in RBE No.40/2008, the relevant statutory rules i.e Indian Railways Assistant Personal Officer (Group „B‟ Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2018, Master circular No.68 governing promotion from Group-C to Group-B as well various judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the point of counting of previous service rendered by the employees for allowing him to participate in the LDCE quota vacancy even in the case of employee who has been transferred on his own request and placed at the bottom seniority and allowed the OA by declaring the Railway employee held to be eligible to participate in the selection process against 30% LDCE quota vide order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure A/10). Learned counsel in this regard replied upon the observation and finding recorded in para 21, 30 and 31 of the said order which reads as under :- “21. The bare reading of the Rules 2018 it is clear that for 30% promotion by LDCE group ‘C’ staff of departments P ANUKUMA

::9 ::

referred in sub-paragraph (i) (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (A) i.e. and applicants are group ‘C’ staff working as Chief Law Assistant included in paragraph (ii) of paragraph (A) and held post on regular basis in level-6 in pay-matrix- since 24.07.2006 in case of applicant No. 1, since 17.07.2010 in case of applicant No. 2. Thus as per recruitment rules 2018 referred herein above, applicants are fully eligible for consideration for promotion to Group B, APO based on purely merit. The respondents are to carry out selections to Group B, for post of A.P.O. based on recruitment Rules, 2018. The Rules 2018nowhere provides for five years regular service in Level-6 on continuous based in one unit only. The Rules 2018 will prevail over executive instructions.

30. We are of the considered opinion that service held at place from where applicants have been transferred have to be counted as experience for purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where applicants have been transferred i.e. East Central Railway. The candidatures of both the applicants cannot be 24 OA No. 744/2023 Patna Bench rejected by declaring ineligible and orders dated 25.09.2023 and dated 25.09.2023 relates to applicants Annexure A-l series to delete names from list of eligible candidates are liable to be set-aside and quashed.

31. For the above reasons, the issue accordingly decided in the favour of the applicants and the original application stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 are set-aside. The applicants are held eligible to participate in the selection process for the post of APO Group B against 30% LDCE Quota and consequences shall ensue.”

Further, the CAT Patna Bench in the aforesaid order has also relied upon the order passed by the CAT Jabalpur Bench in OA No.774/2016 (Rajesh Kumar Patidar Vs. Union of India) wherein it has been held that considering entire service in old unit to be counted while considering the eligibility criteria for promotion. The said order passed by the CAT Jabalpur Bench was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur vide judgment dated 29.09.2022 in WP No.19590/2020 and connected WP. The SLP No. (C) No.5560-5561/2023 filed by the original respondents was also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 P ANUKUMA

::10 ::

(Annexure A/11). Thus, it has been upheld the settled principle of law that past service cannot be ignored, and that an employee cannot be denied eligibility by adopting an arbitrary and incorrect interpretation of the applicable service rules. Accordingly, the Respondents are bound to follow the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and are therefore estopped from taking any contrary stand. 3.10 Further, it is submitted that the condition mentioned in the RBE No.40/2008 and RBE No.34/2006 has already been declared ultra vires by the Hon 'ble Principal Bench in OA No.1755/ 2009. 3.11 Further, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by CAT Jabalpur Bench in OA No.410/2022 (Annexure A/12). The relevant portion of the order is as under : “8. The impugned order makes it explicit that on scrutiny of service records, it is found that the applicant after being transferred on his own request has come to Jabalpur Division from Bengaluru Technician III(TM) in the lowest seniority. Accordingly, the applicants does not complete the 03 years of service in the present post of Technician grade III. Here, the respondents have made the wrong analogy that the being lowest in the seniority list also disqualify the applicant's service rendered in that post at other place before transfer on his own request. Here, the seniority and eligibility are two different service conditions and should not be mixed up. Therefore, it is clear that the entire service at the old unit is to be counted while considering eligibility criteria of service for promotion. The candidature of the applicant in this O.A. cannot be rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the requirement of qualifying service.

9. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The order dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure A/1), wherein the candidature of the applicant has been rejected for not having minimum qualifying service is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion through review DPC within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If found fit, he may be promoted with effect from the same date when others have been promoted through the said selection process. He would also be entitled to consequential financial benefits, on which no interest would be payable . No order as to costs.” P ANUKUMA

::11 ::

3.12 Further, the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Union of India & Anr. v/s. Dalip Kumar in W.P.(C) No. 6603/ 2014 has held that service rendered in previous unit/railway cannot be ignored for determining eligibility for promotion, and that employee cannot be deprived of an consideration merely due to transfer. The case of the Applicant herein is squarely covered by the said judgment (Annexure A/13 Colly.). The relevant portion of the said order reads as under :- “5. By an interim order dated 05.03.2013, the Tribunal permitted the respondent to appear provisionally in the viva voce test, if he had qualified in the written test. The petitioner, subsequently, informed the Tribunal that the respondent had cleared the written examination.

9. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. V. V.N. Bhat (2003) Supp. 4 SCR 857, wherein the Supreme Court has observed: “3 ……It is, therefore, not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on the selection basis, the concerned employee, even if he be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefore. This aspect of the matter is clearly covered by the three decisions of this Court, namely, A.P. Seb v. R. Parthasarathi. 1998(9) SCC 425 = 1998(3)SLJ 245(SCT Scientific Advisor to Ralcsha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph. 1998 (5) SCC 305 and Renu Mullick v. Union of India. 1994 (1)SCC 373.”

11. From the aforesaid, it would be seen that the respondent was entitled to count his service rendered in the North Eastern Railway as DMS-III to the extent of the length of the service rendered by his immediate senior in the new unit, i.e. Northern Railway as DMS-

III. It is not the petitioner’s case that the service rendered by the immediate senior of the respondent in the Northern Railway as DMS-III was less than one year four months - which was the service rendered by the respondent as DMS III in the North Eastern Railway.

12. Para 2(ii) quoted above, in any event, had no application in the facts of the present case. The respondents case is not pertaining to selection for 70% of the posts; selection wherefor is based on seniority. The respondent is concerned with the eligibility to participate in the LDCE, which is open to all eligible candidates, irrespective of their seniority. P ANUKUMA

::12 ::

13. For the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in the petition; the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications. The time for compliance by the respondents is hereby extended by four weeks. 3.13 It is further submitted that the applicant immediate senior of the applicant has not applied in this notification. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per the various Hon'ble Court judgments, it has been reiterated many times that loss of seniority does not means loss of experience/eligibility. The post of AMM (Group 'B') is apromotional post and the Applicant has a legitimate expectation to be considered in the selection process. The Respondents have violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation by denying eligibility without providing reasons and without fair procedure. The selection process is time bound and if the Applicant is not permitted to participate, the Respondents will finalize the panel and the Applicant will lose an entire promotional cycle. Such denial would cause irreparable harm and prejudice to the Applicant, whereas allowing the Applicant to appear provisionally would not cause any prejudice to the Respondents. 3.14 At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the pendency of this OA, the applicant has filed MA No.362/2026 for further order to direct the respondents to keep one post vacant out of the 3 posts till the finilixation of the OA and further direct the respondents to allow him to appear in the Medical and viva- voce if found suitable / passing the written examination.

4. On receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents filed the reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Ms. R.R.Patel learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grievance raised and challenge made by the applicant is misconceived, baseless and not tenable in eyes of law.

5. The applicant had joined the Railway on 04.03.2016 under South Western Railway and subsequently promoted as CDMS on 26.02.2020 in level-7. Thereafter, he took Inter Railway Request P ANUKUMA

::13 ::

Transfer (IRRT) and joined Western Railway on 10.06.2021 at his own request. The applicant has applied for the post of AMM against Notification No. E(G)1024/2025- 26(LDCE 30%) dated 19.12.2025 wherein Para No.3 of thesaid notification clearly stipulates as under: "Eligibility :- In terms of Board's letter No.E(GP)2019/2/25 (RBE No.216/2019) dated 27.12.2019 and para 6.3.1 of Master Circular No.68, Group 'C' employees working in level6(7th CPC) Pay Band-2 Rs 9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs.4200/-(6th PC) and above in pay Matrix with 5 years of non-fortuitous service as on 01.01.2025 will be eligible."

It is submitted that the applicant had joined Western Railway on 10.06.2021. Therefore, he is not found to be eligible in terms of aforesaid eligibility criteria. 5.1 Further, it is stated that Railway Board's RBE 40/2008 provides as under : "It has been decided that in case of persons transferred on request basis to a new unit in the same category of posts, and assigned bottom seniority therein, e the service rendered by them in the previous unit may be reckoned for determining their eligibility wherever a minimum length of service is prescribed as a condition, for promotion in the new unit, subject to the condition that the length of service which is so allowed to be counted does not exceed the length of service of their immediate senior in the new unit. In this regard, it is hereby clarified that the above instructions are applicable for reckoning the minimum qualifying service of Group 'C' employees, in case of own request transfer to a new unit in the same category of posts, for determining their eligibility for promotion to Group 'B posts also". By referring the aforesaid eligibility criteria and instruction contained in RBE 40/2008 it is stated that the applicant has not completed five years of service as DMS in Western Railway. His immediate senior's date of appointment is 15.06.2020, who has also not completed the required five years of service. Therefore, both are found ineligible for this examination. Allowing the applicant for the present selection means gross injustice to all his seniors who are serving in Western Railway prior to him. 5.2 Further, it is stated that initially, the applicant has joined his service in South Western Railway on 04.03.2016 and thereafter took inter Railway Transfer (IRRT) from South Central Railway to P ANUKUMA

::14 ::

Western Railway and joined his service to Western Railway on 10.06.2021. Thus, the service of the applicant is in two part, one from 04.03.2016 in South Western Railway and another from 10.06.2020 in Western Railway, which demonstrates that the applicant has not served continuously in Western Railway. 5.3 Further, it is submitted that after approximately service for three years and six monthsin South Western Railway, on 04.03.2016, he was promoted as Chief Depot Material Superintendent in South Western Railway. It is pertinent to note that as per prevailing Rules on own request transfer from one zone to another, bottom seniority in the new unit of Inter Railway Request Transfer (IRRT), will be applicable, the applicant had come on Inter Railway Request Transfer (IRRT) from South Central Railway to Western Railway and joined the Western Railway as DMS on 10.06.2021. As such, he has not completed five years of service as DMS in Western Railway. Moreover, his immediate senior's date of appointment is 15.06.2020. Therefore, the applicant has been found ineligible for selection in wake of the specific stipulation as contained in the said RBE 40/2008. This RBE is still prevailing and in existence and hence, would apply as it is. 5.4 It is further submitted that the applicant has joined the Western Railway on 10.06.2021, whereas, his immediate senior's date of appointment is 15.06.2020. The Railway Board had issued instructions vide letter No. E(NG)I-2006/PM1/5 dated 21.03.2006 (RBE No.34/2006) (AnnexureR/3), whereby, in partial modification of the instructions issued under Board's letter No.E(NG)I-96/PM4/14, dated 17.04.1997 (RBE No. 55/1997), it had been decided that, in case of person transferred on request basis to a new unit in the same category of posts, and assigned bottom seniority therein, the service rendered by him in the previous unitmay be reckoned for determining his eligibility wherever a minimum length of service is prescribed as a condition, for promotion in the new unit, subject to the condition that P ANUKUMA

::15 ::

the length of service which is so allowed to be counted does not exceed the length of service of their immediate senior in the new unit. Therefore, the applicant has rightly been found ineligible as per the said RBE No. 40/2008 and RBE No.34/2006. 5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant has joined to Western Railway on 10.06.2021. However, he was inadvertently be called for LDCE- 30% selection against the Notifications for the year 2022 and 70% for in the year 2024. The applicant has not completed five years of service as DMS in Western Railway. This was remained unchallenged, meaning thereby, applicant had the knowledge as to his ineligibility. Therefore, he was not empanelled. It is respectfully submitted that, if a mistake committed in the past during the selection process, the same cannot be carried forward/cannot be perpetuated. Merely because the applicant was allowed to participate in the previous selection is no ground to held him eligible for allowing to participate in the present selection in clear disregard of his ineligibility. 5.6 It is submitted that the applicant is not entitled for the final relief(s), has prayed for, much less any interim relief. In the premises aforesaid, present O.A. is having no merits and hence, is required to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. The following points arise for our determination:

(i) Whether the placement of a railway servant at the bottom of the seniority list upon an inter-railway request transfer under Paragraph 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), Volume I, operates to wipe out, forfeit, or extinguish the past continuous, non-fortuitous regular service rendered by him in Level-6 and above in the parent railway zone for the P ANUKUMA

::16 ::

purpose of determining eligibility to participate in a Group 'B' LDCE selection.

(ii) Whether the impugned rejection orders dated 10.02.2026 and 17.02.2026 and the consequential eligibility lists dated 23.01.2026 and 21.03.2026 declaring the applicant ineligible for the 30% LDCE quota notified under Notification No. E(G) 1024/2025-26 (LDCE 30%) dated 19.12.2025 are legally sustainable in light of Master Circular No. 68, RBE No. 40/2008, and binding judicial precedents.

6.1. In addressing the first point for determination, this Tribunal must emphasize the foundational distinction between "seniority" and "eligibility" in service jurisprudence. Seniority establishes the relative grading and precedence among employees within a specific cadre, which regulates promotional consideration where advancement is based upon seniority-cum-fitness or the normal seniority quota. Eligibility, in stark contrast, is the inherent qualification and prescribed qualifying experience an employee must satisfy to enter the field of consideration for a post. While a voluntary transferee undoubtedly foregoes relative seniority in the parent cadre and assumes the bottom-most position in the absorbing unit to protect the seniority expectations of incumbent staff, such bottom seniority does not erase the substantive reality of continuous regular service rendered under the Central Government. The employer remains the Railways in the present case, and the nature of the duties performed in the corresponding pay matrix remains non-fortuitous government service. 6.2 The statutory framework promulgated by the Railway Board is unequivocal on this subject. Railway Board Circular RBE No. 216/2019 (Letter No. E(GP)2019/2/25 dated 27.12.2019), which governs selections to Group 'B' posts pursuant to the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations, prescribes the following criteria for LDCE selections: P ANUKUMA

::17 ::

"For Group 'B' selections (30% LDCE quota), Group 'C' employees working in Level 6 and above in Pay Matrix with 5 years of non-fortuitous service in Level 6 and above in Pay Matrix (including non-fortuitous service rendered in the corresponding pre-revised grade pay) will be eligible." 6.3 A plain reading of RBE No. 216/2019 read with Master Circular No. 68 establishes that the competent rule-making authority required five years of non-fortuitous service in Level-6 and above across the board. The circular contains no qualifying clause or restrictive proviso requiring that such five years must be completed within the particular Zonal Railway administering the examination. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where the language of an executive instruction or rule is plain and unambiguous, words cannot be added by administrative authorities to restrict the scope of eligibility. The respondents' unilateral interpolation of the phrase "in Western Railway" into the clear language of RBE No. 216/2019 is impermissible and contrary to the governing circulars. 6.4 This position is reaffirmed by Railway Board Circular RBE No. 40/2008 dated 18.03.2008. The Railway Board expressly resolved the issue of reckoning service rendered in the parent unit upon transfer on bottom seniority, clarifying that regular qualifying service rendered in the former unit counts towards fulfilling the minimum residency period for promotion in the new unit, so long as it does not disturb the seniority ranking of senior staff in pure seniority-based selections. In the context of a 30% LDCE quota, which is purely competitive and founded upon performance in a written test and selection assessment, relative cadre seniority plays no role in determining eligibility. Thus, the counting of past regular service does not infringe upon any legitimate right of Western Railway employees. 6.5 The foundational legal principle governing the present dispute- namely, that voluntary transfer carrying bottom seniority does not forfeit or efface past substantive, non-fortuitous qualifying service P ANUKUMA

::18 ::

rendered under the Central Government for computing eligibility for promotional selection-is firmly anchored in binding judicial precedents. The distinction between "seniority" on the one hand and "qualifying experience/eligibility" on the other has received authoritative judicial endorsement from the Hon'ble High Courts as well as coordinate Benches of this Tribunal dealing specifically with railway personnel. 6.6 In Union of India v. Dalip Kumar, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (supra) considered the precise question of whether a railway employee who seeks an inter-railway transfer on his own volition and is assigned bottom seniority in the transferee railway zone can be denied eligibility to participate in a Group 'B' Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) on the premise that he had not completed the requisite residency period in the new zone. The Hon'ble High Court categorically rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted by the railway administration, holding that:

• Forfeiture of seniority under the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) upon an own- request transfer is intended solely to safeguard the seniority prospects of existing employees in the parent cadre of the absorbing unit with respect to regular promotion quotas.

• Forfeiture of seniority does not equate to an erasure or forfeiture of the past regular service or experience accumulated by the government servant in an identical or equivalent scale of pay.

• Where the statutory notification governing a merit-based competitive examination requires a specified period of non- fortuitous regular service in the feeder grade, the past regular service rendered by the employee in his parent railway zone must be clubbed with his service in the transferee railway zone to assess eligibility. P ANUKUMA

::19 ::

7. The aforesaid legal proposition was meticulously analyzed and reaffirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India (OA No. 744/2023). In that case, the applicant had sought an inter-railway transfer with bottom seniority and was subsequently disqualified from appearing in the Group 'B' LDCE selection on the ground that he did not possess the requisite minimum qualifying service exclusively within the East Central Railway zone. Setting aside the rejection, the Patna Bench held that Railway Board Circular RBE No. 216/2019 consciously omitted any restrictive zonal qualification, specifying only "5 years of non-fortuitous service in Level 6 and above in Pay Matrix". The Patna Bench ruled that regular service rendered under the Union of India in another railway zone remains valid, non-fortuitous service and cannot be excluded for computing eligibility for Group 'B' selections under the 30% LDCE quota. 7.1 An identical conclusion was reached by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in Rajesh Kumar Patidar v. Union of India (OA No. 410/2022). The Jabalpur Bench held that an employee who joins a new railway division or zone on bottom seniority does not lose the qualifying service rendered in the parent unit for the purposes of participating in departmental examinations. The Bench observed that departmental competitive examinations under the LDCE quota are designed to encourage merit, competency, and efficiency across the railway administration. Depriving an employee with extensive continuous experience of the opportunity to test his merit solely because of an administrative relocation would undermine the core purpose of the LDCE scheme and introduce an artificial restriction not contemplated by the Railway Board's circular instructions. 7.2 At this stage it is apt mention that the aforesaid order passed by the CAT Jabalpur Bench was upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur vide judgment dated 29.09.2022 in WP No.19590/2020 and connected WP. The SLP No. P ANUKUMA

::20 ::

(C) No.5560-5561/2023 filed by the original respondents was also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure A/11). Thus, it has been upheld the settled principle of law that past service cannot be ignored, and that an employee cannot be denied eligibility by adopting an arbitrary and incorrect interpretation of the applicable service rules.

8. This Tribunal is in complete and respectful agreement with the principles articulated in Union of India v. Dalip Kumar, Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India, and Rajesh Kumar Patidar v. Union of India(supra). The legal position is clear and consistent across coordinate Benches: past non-fortuitous service rendered in Level-6 and above in any Zonal Railway is integral qualifying service that cannot be truncated when determining eligibility for a 30% LDCE selection.

9. Applying these authoritative pronouncements to the established facts of the present case: 9.1 The applicant was recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board and joined the Stores Department of South Western Railway as Depot Material Superintendent (DMS) in Level-6 on 04.03.2016. 9.2 He rendered unblemished regular service and was promoted on a regular basis to Level-7 as Chief Depot Material Superintendent (CDMS). 9.3 He was transferred on his own request to Western Railway on 10.06.2021, accepting bottom seniority in Level-6 as DMS at the Electric Loco Shed, Vadodara Yard. 9.4 In terms of Notification No. [Notification Number] dated 19.12.2025, the crucial date for reckoning eligibility is 01.01.2025. P ANUKUMA

::21 ::

9.5 As on 01.01.2025, the applicant had accumulated over eight years and nine months of continuous, non-fortuitous regular service in Level-6 and above under the Ministry of Railways, Union of India.

10. The applicant therefore comfortably exceeds the mandatory benchmark of five years of non-fortuitous service in Level-6 and above prescribed by RBE No. 216/2019 and Master Circular No. 68. The respondents' insistence that the applicant must complete five years of service within Western Railway itself is an arbitrary, unilateral gloss on the rules that finds no sanction in the Railway Board's circulars.

11. Furthermore, the respondent railway administration is bound by the doctrine of consistency. It is an admitted position that Western Railway itself found the applicant eligible and permitted him to participate in the Group 'B' AMM LDCE selections for both the 2022 and 2024 vacancy cycles by reckoning his past regular service in South Western Railway. The respondents cannot now execute an arbitrary reversal and disqualify the applicant under the exact same statutory regime without any amendment to the recruitment rules. Such capricious administrative conduct violates the guarantees of equality of opportunity and fair treatment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot now arbitrarily depart from that established position to the detriment of the applicant. Public administration must adhere to consistency and predictability. An arbitrary reversal of practice without any amendment to the recruitment rules violates the applicant's right to fair consideration under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, both points for determination are answered squarely in favor of the applicant and against the respondents.

12. At this stage, it is important to mention that during the pendency of this OA, by way of interim order dated 24.04.2026, this Tribunal allowed the applicant herein to participate in the written test held in P ANUKUMA

::22 ::

the month of May, 2026 with certain conditions such as to keep the result of the written test qua the applicant herein in the sealed cover. Thereafter, the result of the applicant kept in sealed cover was opened in the court room on 04.08.2026 and it was found that the applicant herein has scored 130.95 marks in LDCE (30% quota) for Group „B‟ post of Assistant Material Manager (AMM) and became eligible to appear in viva voce test. Accordingly, by way of additional interim order dated 04.08.2026, the applicant was allowed to appear in vivo voce test scheduled on 05.08.2026 and allow him for medical examination as well. Further, it was directed to the respondents to see to it that if the applicant has found successful in vivo vice test, his name is required to be considered for further selection process.

13. Consequently this Tribunal holds that the applicant possesses the requisite qualifying service of five years in Level-6 and above as on 01.01.2025 and is fully eligible to participate in the selection process for promotion to the Group 'B' post of Assistant Materials Manager (AMM) against the 30% LDCE quota notified on 19.12.2025.

14. In the light of the detailed findings and conclusions recorded above, the Original Application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The following operative orders and directions are issued accordingly:

(a) The impugned rejection orders dated 10.02.2026 and 17.02.2026 (Annexure A/1 Colly.) issued by the respondent Western Railway administration are hereby quashed and set aside.

(b) The Provisional Eligibility List dated 23.01.2026 and the Final/Revised Eligibility List dated 21.03.2026, to the extent that the applicant has been declared "not eligible" for the Group 'B' post of Assistant Materials Manager (AMM) against the 30% LDCE quota pursuant to Notification No. E(G) P ANUKUMA

::23 ::

1024/2025-26 (LDCE 30%) dated 19.12.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside.

(c) It is held and declared that the continuous, non-fortuitous regular service rendered by the applicant in Level-6 and Level- 7 in South Western Railway from 04.03.2016 to 09.06.2021 shall be counted and clubbed alongside his regular service in Western Railway for computing qualifying service for the purpose of eligibility under Notification No. E(G) 1024/2025- 26 (LDCE 30%) dated 19.12.2025, and that the applicant is fully eligible to participate in the said selection.

(d) Since the applicant has been allowed by this Tribunal to appear in written test, viva voce test as well as medical test by way of interim order, the respondents are therefore directed to consider the name of the applicant for promotion to the Group „B‟ post of Assistant Material Manager (AMM) against the 30% LDCE quota as per the result of the said test/ examination and process his case along with other successful candidates in accordance with the rules forthwith.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjiv Kumar) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A) Member (J)

nk P ANUKUMA