S PRASHANTH vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY on 23 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Call for the records and on perusal quash the communication dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A8) as illogical, unconstitutional and against rules;

(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant on the strength of the Annexures-A10, A11 and A - 12 and order to include his name in the final panel seniority and to promote him to the post of Senior Section Officer at par with those promoted vide Annexure-A6 with all consequential benefits and

(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice & equity.”

2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds set out in para 5, which are as follows:- “5(1). The applicant has been denied with the promotion by the second respondent by taking shelter under Railway Board's order dated 02.06.2015 in which it has been stated that 5 years continuous service in Group C post in Railway Accounts office is required. The copy of the said Railway Board letter communicated by the second respondent on 03.06.2015 is placed as Annexure-A9. It is illogical and unacceptable as per the DOP&T O.M dated 30.04.2010. In the said O.M, it has been clearly stated that all the Group D posts are upgraded to Group C and there will be no further recruitment in Group D. As per that, the post of Peon in GP Rs. 1800 is Group C and the service of the applicant from the date of initial appointment to be considered as Group C service and by wrong interpretation and with no updating knowledge, the second respondent has taken the illogical CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

decision. The copy of the DOP&T' O.M dated 30.04.2010 is placed as Annexure-A10.

5(2). The Railway Board Establishment circular no. 02/2014 dated 07.01.2014 also reiterates that all the erstwhile Group D categories are upgraded to Group C. So it clearly establishes that the stand taken by the second respondent in the case of the applicant is incorrect. The copy of the RBE no.2/2014 communicated through corrigendum dated 07.01.2014 is placed as Annexure-A11.

5(3). Recently in their communication dated 14.11.2022, the Railway Board has clarified in para 2 that "level-1 employees (erstwhile Group D) who are now classified as Group C........" which also proves that the stand taken by the second respondent is wrong. The copy of the communication dated 14.11.2022 is placed as Annexure-A12.

5(4).When the examination has been conducted by Railway Board and the result has been declared by the Railway Board, the second respondent cannot take a unilateral decision of removing the name of the applicant from the selected panel for which the second respondent has no jurisdiction. Taking a unilateral decision with no authority is very much unconstitutional.

5(5).When all the posts in Group D were upgraded to Group C on the implementation of sixth pay commission, the entire service of the applicant to be taken as in Group C only. Thereby he has completed more than 6 years of service in Group C on the date of notification (20.02.2024) issued by the Railway Board.

5(6). In the advance correction slip no.282 communicated under RBA no. 27/2023 (which is the part of the notification), in para 4,the eligibility condition for appearing in the Appendix -III examination has been stipulated. In that, no such condition of 5 years service as Group C has been stipulated. It is not mentioned in the notification also. In the absence of that, it cannot be insisted at the time of issuing promotion order as CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

the selection to be based only on the conditions mentioned in the notification.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the synopsis, are as follows:- “1. The applicant who is presently working as Junior Accounts Assistant in Bengaluru division of South Western Railway appeared for the Appendix -III (IREM) examination 2024 conducted by the Railway Board and declared as successful. Having qualified in the examination, he was subjected for medical examination and for orientation training programme from 19.8.2024 to 27.09.2024. In the provisional panel seniority list issued on 13.09.2024 (Annexure A-3),his name was figuring at sl.no.37. But in the final panel seniority list issued on 26.09.2024 (Annexure A-5), his name was left out and the promotion order was issued on 27.09.2024 (Annexure A-6) only to those whose names figured in the final panel list.

2. On inquiring for the reason, it has been stated that he did not have 5 years of service in Group 'C’. As he was allowed to appear for the examination only after verifying the details furnished and no such condition stipulated in the notification, the decision of the respondents in non promoting the applicant even after having been placed in the selected panel is very much illogical, unacceptable and against rules. So, the applicant has no other alternative remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for getting justice.”

4. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statements, no rejoinder has been filed by the applicants, thereafter memo with documents have been filed by the applicant.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 08.10.2026. Shri K. Shivakumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Sayed S. Kazi, learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard. CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions. Consideration of the issues:

7. The material facts relating to the applicant’s appointment, subsequent promotion, participation in the Appendix-III examination and qualification therein are not in dispute. The applicant was initially appointed as General Assistant in Level-1, corresponding to the erstwhile Group D category, on 12.05.2017 in the Accounts Department. He was subsequently promoted as Accounts Clerk in Level-2 on 14.03.2022. He thereafter appeared in the Appendix-III examination conducted on 18.06.2024 and 19.06.2024 and was declared successful on 09.08.2024. He attended the online orientation programme on 19.08.2024, and his DAR and Vigilance clearance were forwarded to Headquarters on 23.08.2024. A provisional panel seniority list was issued on 13.09.2024, his medical examination was conducted on 16.09.2024, and his preference for place of posting was obtained on 23.09.2024. Subsequently, the final panel seniority list was issued on 26.09.2024, followed by the promotion order dated 27.09.2024 in respect of the other successful candidates. However, the applicant’s name was omitted from the final panel, although it had figured in the provisional panel.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

8. Aggrieved by the omission, the applicant submitted representations dated 27.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, which are collectively referred to in Annexure-A7. In response, the second respondent issued the impugned communication dated 07.10.2024 bearing No. AAD/SWR/3/1/Vol.IV, informing the applicant that he was ineligible for inclusion in the final panel for want of the prescribed five years of service in Group C. The relevant portion of the communication reads as follows:

“5 years/3 years services stipulated in Para 6/App3 IREM/Vol.I for appearing in Appendix-3 IREM examinations should be in Group C posts in Accounts Department so as to ensure that the candidate has adequate experience in working of the department. In this regard a Corrigendum was issued by this office vide Ltr.No.AAD/SWR/87/Vol.IV, dt:03.06.2015 to all units of SWR Accounts. As such Shri.Prashanth S, JAA who has completed 1 year 11 months service in Gr.C till the date of notification is not eligible to appear Appendix-III (IREM)-2024 Examination and therefore he is not considered in the final panel seniority of Appendix-III qualified candidates.”

9. The controversy in the present Original Application is narrow. It concerns the interpretation and application of the eligibility condition contained in paragraph 4(a) of Appendix-III to Volume I of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), particularly the proviso prescribing the requisite period of continuous service in a Group C post in CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

a Railway Accounts Office. The relevant provision, as relied upon by the parties, reads:

“Provided that no such Railway Servant will ordinarily be considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless he/she has completed 5 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office or 3 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office if he/she is a Graduate.”

10. The rival contentions turn principally on the interpretation of the expression “5 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office”. The applicant advances a literal interpretation of the provision. According to him, since his initial appointment as General Assistant was in the Accounts Department and the erstwhile Group D posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 had been upgraded and classified as Group C following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, his service from the date of initial appointment must also count towards the prescribed period. The respondents, on the other hand, advocate a purposive and harmonious interpretation. According to them, the requirement is not merely five years of service in any Group C post situated in the Accounts Department. It is five years of service in the relevant ministerial or clerical cadre in the Accounts Department, so that the candidate acquires adequate practical CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

experience in accounting and departmental work. Since the applicant was promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk in Level-2 only on 14.03.2022, the respondents contend that he had completed only one year and eleven months of qualifying service in the relevant cadre by the date of the notification dated 20.02.2024 and, therefore, did not satisfy the eligibility condition. The principal question, accordingly, is whether the prescribed period of service must necessarily be rendered in the ministerial or clerical cadre of the Accounts Department, or whether service rendered in a Level-1 Group C post in the same department can also be counted for the purpose of the proviso.

11. It is not disputed that the applicant had rendered service in the Accounts Department from the date of his initial appointment on 12.05.2017 and that he entered the clerical cadre only on 14.03.2022. The dispute is, therefore, not about the length of his overall service in the Accounts Department, but about the character of the service that can be reckoned towards the eligibility requirement under the proviso. The respondents’ interpretation proceeds on the premise that the prescribed period of service must be spent in the clerical or ministerial cadre, where the substantive accounting functions are performed. The CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

applicant’s case, however, is that the provision does not expressly impose such a restriction and that his service in the Level-1 post, being service in a Group C post in the Railway Accounts Office, cannot be excluded by introducing a condition that the rule does not state.

12. To resolve this controversy, it is necessary to examine the relevant versions of Appendix-III to the IREM placed before us and the subsequent instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and the Railway Board concerning the classification of the erstwhile Group D posts.

The original Revised Edition of 1989 of Volume I of the IREM, Appendix-III, paragraph 4, reads as follows:

“4. No railway servant will be permitted to appear for the examination unless:

(a) He has passed the examination laid down in Appendix 2 for promotion above the rank of Clerks Grade II or he has exempted from passing that examination under the provision of any general rule laid down in this Manual or separately by the Railway Board or holds the post of a Clerk Grade I substantively. Provided that no such railway servant will ordinarily be considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless he is permanent and has completed 5 years Continuous service in a Railway Accounts Office, or three years if he is a Graduate.”

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

The above provision, as originally framed, prescribed the requirement of passing the examination laid down in Appendix-2 or satisfying the specified alternative conditions. Its proviso further required permanent status and the prescribed period of continuous service in a Railway Accounts Office, with a shorter period for graduates.

13. The respondents have relied upon the Railway Board’s clarification dated 02.06.2015, communicated by the second respondent through the corrigendum dated 03.06.2015, bearing No. AAD/SWR/87/Vol.IV. The relevant portion reads:

“In view of the clarifications issued by the Railway Board vide letter No. 2015/AC-II/20/App-3 dated 02.06.2015, the eligibility (Para 2.1.1(a)) for appearing in Appendix 3 (IREM) Examination 2015 issued vide this office Notification of even No. dated 13.05.2015 may be read as

(a) has passed the examination laid down in Appendix-2 IREM for promotion above the rank of Accounts Clerk or has been exempted from passing that examination under the provisions of any General Rule laid down in IREM or separately by the Railway Board or holds the post of Junior Accounts Assistant substantively. Provided that no such Railway Servant will ordinarily be considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless he/she has completed 5 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office or 3 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office if he/she is a Graduate, Other contents in the Notification remain the same.” CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

14. The respondents have also produced Annexure-R4, which is the same corrigendum dated 03.06.2015. The original Revised Edition of 1989 of Appendix-III, as relied upon by the applicant, has also been placed before us. A comparison of these documents shows that the 2015 clarification modified the description of the qualifying examination and the relevant posts and expressly incorporated the requirement of continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. Significantly, the express requirement that the candidate must be permanent, as found in the original version, does not appear in the quoted proviso as reproduced in the 2015 corrigendum.

15. The material question is the significance of the expression “Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office” introduced in the 2015 clarification. The provision undoubtedly requires service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. However, it does not expressly state that the entire qualifying period must be spent in the post of Accounts Clerk, Junior Accounts Assistant, or any other specified ministerial or clerical post. Nor does the proviso expressly state that the five-year period must commence only after the candidate has passed the examination prescribed in Appendix-2 or entered the clerical cadre.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

The requirement of having passed the examination prescribed in Appendix-2 and the requirement of the prescribed period of service are separately expressed conditions. They must, therefore, be read together without importing into the proviso an additional restriction that is not apparent from its text. The fact that paragraph 4(a) refers to the examination prescribed in Appendix-2 does not, by itself, establish that the qualifying period of service under the proviso must be reckoned exclusively from the date of passing that examination or appointment to the clerical cadre.

At the same time, the expression cannot be read in isolation from the scheme of the examination and the requirement that the service should be in a Railway Accounts Office. The nature of the post, its classification and its location in the departmental structure are relevant considerations. The question is whether those considerations justify the respondents’ insistence that only service in the ministerial or clerical cadre can be counted, despite the broader language employed in the 2015 clarification.

16. In this context, the applicant has relied upon Annexure-A10, the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training bearing No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt(RR), dated 30.04.2010, under the CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

subject “Model Recruitment Rules for Group C posts in Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 (Pre-revised Group D posts)”. The relevant portion reads:

“the 6th CPC recommended that all Group D posts in the Government will stand upgraded to Group C , pay band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 , along with incumbents (after suitable training, wherever required) and Model Recruitment Rules (Annex-I) have been framed keeping in view the recommendations of the Pay Commission. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to amend the Recruitment Rules for the erstwhile Group’ D’ posts as per the Model RRs and the recommendations of the Pay Commission.”

The applicant relies upon this Office Memorandum to contend that the erstwhile Group D posts, including his initial post, were upgraded and classified as Group C following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations. Consequently, according to him, his service in the Level-1 post cannot be disregarded merely because the post was formerly classified as Group D.

17. The applicant has also relied upon Annexure-A11, communicated on 07.01.2014, enclosing Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 02/2014 dated 03.01.2014, bearing the subject “Classification of Railway Services consequent upon introduction of RS (RP) Rules, 2008-Eligibility CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

for selection to Group ‘C’ in General Categories”. The relevant portion reads:

“Accordingly, it has been decided that all erstwhile Group ‘D’ categories in G.P. Rs.1800, since upgraded as Group ‘C’, will continue to be eligible for selection to Group ‘C’ posts as per the AVC already provided, if they possess the required eligibility criteria i.e. prescribed educational qualification and residency period etc. They will also be eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Stenographers (G.P. Rs.2400), if they possess the required eligibility criteria.”

The above instruction supports the applicant’s contention that the erstwhile Group D categories carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 were classified as Group C and could be considered for selection to other Group C posts, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility criteria. It is, however, necessary to distinguish between the general classification of a post as Group C and the specific qualifying service prescribed for a particular departmental examination. The former does not automatically dispense with the latter. The classification instructions are nevertheless relevant in determining whether service rendered in the applicant’s Level- 1 post can be excluded solely on the ground that the post was formerly classified as Group D.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

18. The applicant has further relied upon Annexure-A12, the Railway Board’s communication dated 14.11.2022, bearing No. E(NG)I- 2022/PM20/2, under the subject “Eligibility of Level-1 (erstwhile Group ‘D’) employees for appearing the Selection of Publicity Inspector of Level-5”. The communication reads as follows:

“In terms of instructions contained in Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/89/PM20/2 dated 28.03.1989 (RBE No.89/1989), the vacancies in the post of Publicity Inspector in Level-5 are to be filled up on the basis of a Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the Graduate Railway employees, who have completed 5 years service in Group ‘C’ in any of the Departments of the Railway, and are not above 35 years of age. The employees selected as Publicity Inspector are imparted 45 days training in Zonal Training Schools and are attached to Newspaper/AIR/Doordarshan for a period of two weeks before being put to working posts.

One of the Railways has sought clarification as to whether all Gr. “C” staff from Level-1 to Level-4 would be eligible for appearing the selection for the post of Publicity Inspector of Level 5. The matter has been examined and with approval of competent authority it is clarified that Level-1 employees (erstwhile Group ‘D’), who are now classified as Group C, are also eligible for the selection to the post of Publicity Inspector in Level-5.

Please acknowledge receipt.

This disposes off Eastern Railway’s letter No.E.839/T- HQ/CPRO/Promotion/NH/Pt.II dated 14.10.2022.”

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

19. A plain reading of the above communication shows that the Railway Board, upon considering the question whether Level-1 employees belonging to the erstwhile Group D category could compete for selection to the Level-5 post of Publicity Inspector, clarified that such employees, having been classified as Group C, were also eligible to participate in the selection, subject to the applicable conditions.

The applicant relies upon this clarification as an instance of the Railway Board recognising the eligibility of Level-1 employees for advancement to a higher-level post through a departmental competitive examination. He contends that the same general classification principle ought to be applied to his case, particularly because the 2015 corrigendum governing the Appendix-III examination expressly refers to continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office without specifying that the service must be exclusively in the clerical or ministerial cadre.

20. We have considered the relevance of Annexure-A12 with due regard to the fact that it concerns a different post and a different selection scheme. The clarification relating to Publicity Inspectors cannot, by itself, override or alter the eligibility conditions prescribed for the Appendix-III examination. Nor does the classification of Level-1 employees as Group C necessarily mean that every period of service in such a post must be CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

counted towards the qualifying service for every departmental examination.

Nevertheless, the communication is relevant to the limited extent that it demonstrates the Railway Board’s recognition that employees in Level-1 posts, though formerly classified as Group D, are now Group C employees and may be considered for selection to higher-level posts where the applicable rules permit. It also reinforces the need to interpret the expression used in the 2015 corrigendum according to its actual terms, rather than automatically excluding the applicant’s Level-1 service merely because it was rendered before his promotion to the clerical cadre.

21. The applicant further points out that, pursuant to the notification dated 20.02.2024, he submitted his application on 26.02.2024 and was permitted to participate in the examination conducted on 18.06.2024 and 19.06.2024. He was declared successful by memorandum dated 09.08.2024. His name was thereafter included at Serial No. 37 in the provisional panel seniority list dated 13.09.2024, Annexure-A3. His medical fitness was also recorded, and his preference for place of posting was obtained before the final panel was issued. The applicant emphasises that the relevant particulars concerning his initial appointment and entry into the Accounts Department were available CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

to the respondents throughout the selection process. In particular, Annexure-A3 records his date of appointment as 12.05.2017 and his date of entry into the Accounts Department also as 12.05.2017. He contends that the respondents had the necessary information to determine his eligibility and, having scrutinised his application and permitted him to participate in the examination, could not subsequently exclude him from the final panel without a legally sustainable reason.

22. The respondents’ stand, as reflected in the impugned communication, is that the applicant had completed only one year and eleven months of service in Group C in the relevant clerical cadre as on the date of the notification. Their interpretation is founded on the premise that the qualifying service contemplated by paragraph 4(a) must be service in the ministerial or clerical cadre of the Accounts Department, where the relevant accounting work is performed.

The underlying administrative consideration advanced by the respondents is not without relevance. A departmental examination intended to select personnel for higher supervisory posts may legitimately prescribe prior experience in the relevant functions or cadre. If the governing rule expressly requires such experience, an employee cannot claim eligibility merely because the post held by him is classified as Group C. The CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

question, however, is whether the particular restriction asserted by the respondents is actually contained in the applicable provision or can properly be inferred from its scheme and purpose.

23. In the present case, the 2015 corrigendum uses the expression “5 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office”. It does not use the expressions “ministerial cadre”, “clerical cadre”, “Accounts Clerk” or “service after passing the Appendix-2 examination” in the proviso prescribing the period of qualifying service. The respondents seek to read such a restriction into the provision on the basis of the functional requirements of the higher post.

Although a purposive interpretation must take account of the object and scheme of a provision, it cannot ordinarily be employed to add a substantive eligibility condition that the rule-making authority has not expressed, particularly when the words used are capable of being applied according to their ordinary meaning. The object of securing adequate departmental experience must be considered alongside the actual language adopted by the Railway Board. A construction that gives effect to both the stated eligibility condition and the evident departmental purpose is preferable to one that effectively substitutes a different condition for the one prescribed.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

24. The distinction between classification and cadre eligibility must nevertheless be maintained. The upgradation of erstwhile Group D posts to Group C does not, by itself, merge different cadres, equate their duties, or confer an automatic right to promotion to a higher post. An employee must satisfy all applicable conditions governing the particular examination and subsequent promotion. The applicant’s case cannot, therefore, succeed solely on the ground that his Level-1 post was classified as Group C.

The material consideration is that the 2015 corrigendum itself expresses the service requirement in terms of continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. The applicant’s initial post was in the Accounts Department, and the respondents have not disputed the date from which he entered that department. The applicant also passed the examination prescribed at the preceding stage and subsequently served as Accounts Clerk in Level-2. On these facts, the issue is whether the respondents are justified in excluding the entire period of his Level-1 service from the qualifying period, despite the absence of an express restriction to the clerical cadre in the proviso.

25. We find that the respondents’ interpretation places decisive emphasis on the nature of the duties performed in the clerical cadre, whereas the text of the proviso refers to the classification of the post and CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

the establishment in which the service is rendered. Had the Railway Board intended to restrict the qualifying period to service in a specified clerical or ministerial post, it could have stated so expressly. The wording employed in the 2015 corrigendum does not contain such a qualification.

It is not for this Tribunal to substitute its own view of the most desirable eligibility criterion for that prescribed by the competent authority. Equally, the respondents cannot apply a narrower criterion merely because, in their view, it would better serve the functional purpose of the examination. The prescribed condition must be applied as framed, subject to a construction consistent with the scheme of the relevant rules.

26. The applicant’s reliance upon the Railway Board’s communication dated 14.11.2022 lends contextual support to his interpretation. As already observed, that communication does not govern the Appendix-III examination directly. It does, however, demonstrate that the Railway Board has recognised Level-1 employees, formerly classified as Group D, as Group C employees and has permitted their consideration for selection to a higher-level post under the applicable scheme. This reinforces the conclusion that the respondents cannot treat the applicant’s former Group D classification, by itself, as sufficient reason to exclude his Level-1 service from consideration. CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

The respondents have not demonstrated, by reference to an express provision in the applicable rule, that service rendered by a Group C employee in Level-1 in the Railway Accounts Office must invariably be disregarded for the purpose of the five-year requirement under the 2015 corrigendum. Their reliance on the functional distinction between Level- 1 and the clerical cadre does not, without more, establish that the narrower construction is mandated by the text of the provision.

27. We have also considered the significance of the respondents permitting the applicant to participate in the examination and subsequently including his name in the provisional panel. It is settled in principle that an administrative authority’s erroneous decision to permit a candidate to participate in a selection process cannot, by itself, confer eligibility contrary to a binding statutory rule. There can be no estoppel against a statutory requirement, and a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in an examination or being declared successful.

However, the applicant does not rely solely upon the respondents’ earlier conduct. He has also placed before us the relevant classification instructions and the text of the 2015 corrigendum. His case is that, on a CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

proper interpretation of those materials, the service rendered by him in Level-1 is capable of being counted towards the prescribed period. In that context, the respondents’ prior scrutiny of his application, permission to participate, declaration of results and inclusion in the provisional panel are relevant circumstances in assessing the fairness and consistency of the subsequent decision to exclude him.

28. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override an express statutory disqualification or create a substantive right contrary to the governing rules. Nevertheless, where the applicable provision is reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, the conduct of the administration, the information available to it at the relevant time and the consistency of its application of the governing instructions may be relevant in determining whether the interpretation subsequently adopted is fair and legally sustainable.

In the present case, the applicant disclosed his relevant service particulars, was permitted to participate after scrutiny, qualified in the examination and was included in the provisional panel. His name was omitted only from the final panel, on the ground that his service in the clerical cadre was insufficient. While the earlier stages of the selection process do not, independently, establish a right to promotion, the subsequent exclusion CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

must still be justified by the applicable eligibility provision. The impugned communication must, therefore, stand or fall on the correctness of the interpretation adopted by the respondents.

29. The respondents’ interpretation seeks to read the five-year service requirement as necessarily requiring five years of service in the ministerial or clerical cadre of the Accounts Department. The difficulty with that interpretation is that the proviso, as reproduced in the 2015 corrigendum, does not expressly prescribe such a limitation. The rule refers to continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. In the absence of a demonstrated provision restricting the qualifying service to the clerical cadre, the respondents’ interpretation would introduce an additional condition into the text. The fact that the applicant had served as Accounts Clerk for only one year and eleven months by the relevant date is not, by itself, sufficient to establish his ineligibility if his earlier service in a Group C post in the same Accounts Office is liable to be counted under the language of the proviso. The applicant’s case must be examined on the basis of the actual condition prescribed and not on the basis of a narrower condition that the respondents consider preferable.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

30. We are conscious that a purposive and harmonious construction requires the provision to be read in the context of the overall recruitment and promotion scheme, including the nature of the higher supervisory posts and the experience reasonably expected of the candidates. Such considerations may support a requirement of prior experience in the relevant accounting functions. However, the purpose of a rule cannot be used to disregard its language or to incorporate a restriction that is not expressed in it.

The Railway Board, while issuing the 2015 clarification, could have specified that the qualifying period must be completed in the ministerial or clerical cadre, or in a particular post or pay level, if that was its intention. The proviso, as framed, instead refers broadly to continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. The respondents’ interpretation does not adequately explain why the broader expression employed in the corrigendum should be read as confined to service in the clerical cadre.

31. The applicant’s case is further supported by the fact that his service in the Accounts Department commenced on 12.05.2017 and continued after his promotion to Accounts Clerk on 14.03.2022. By the time of the notification dated 20.02.2024, he had rendered more than five years of CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

service in the Accounts Department. His Level-1 post, following the applicable classification, was treated as a Group C post. He had also passed the examination prescribed at the preceding stage and successfully completed the Appendix-III examination.

On a plain reading of the proviso, the relevant question is whether he had completed the prescribed period of continuous service in a Group C post in the Railway Accounts Office. The text does not expressly require the entire period to have been served in the clerical cadre. In the circumstances of this case, the respondents have not established a sufficient textual basis for excluding the applicant’s earlier service in Level-1 from the qualifying period.

32. We accordingly find that the respondents’ reliance upon the functional distinction between Level-1 and Level-2, without identifying an express provision requiring five years of service exclusively in the clerical or ministerial cadre, does not provide a sufficient basis for sustaining the impugned decision. This conclusion does not mean that service in any Group C post must necessarily count for every departmental examination. The service must satisfy the particular requirements of the applicable rule, including the requirement that it be rendered in the specified department or establishment. Our conclusion is confined to the CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

wording of the proviso governing the Appendix-III examination and the facts established in the present case.

33. The respondents’ conduct during the selection process must also be viewed in this context. The applicant’s service particulars were available to the authorities when his application was scrutinised. He was permitted to take the examination, declared successful and included in the provisional panel. The respondents subsequently excluded him from the final panel on the basis of an interpretation that restricts the qualifying period to service in the clerical cadre, although the proviso does not expressly state that requirement.

As noted earlier, the principle that there can be no estoppel against statutory rules prevents the applicant from relying on the respondents’ earlier actions as an independent source of eligibility. However, where the applicable text does not support the additional restriction asserted by the respondents, their earlier conduct reinforces the need for a consistent and reasoned application of the governing provision. The impugned communication does not adequately address the distinction between the language of the proviso and the narrower criterion adopted by the respondents.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

34. We have also considered whether the applicant’s claim must be rejected on the ground that permission to participate in the examination does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion. There is no dispute about that general principle. Qualification in an examination, inclusion in a provisional panel or even inclusion in a select list does not, by itself, dispense with the applicable eligibility conditions or create an unconditional right to appointment or promotion.

The applicant’s case, however, is not founded merely upon his success in the examination. It rests on his interpretation of the 2015 corrigendum, read with the instructions concerning the classification of erstwhile Group D posts and the undisputed facts relating to his service in the Accounts Department. For the reasons already stated, we find that the respondents have not established that the five-year qualifying period must necessarily consist exclusively of service in the clerical or ministerial cadre. The applicant’s exclusion from the final panel on that basis cannot, therefore, be sustained.

35. The principles of fairness and legitimate expectation provide additional context to the above conclusion, although they cannot independently override the governing rules. The applicant furnished his particulars without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

respondents scrutinised his application and permitted him to participate in the examination. His result was declared and his name appeared in the provisional panel. The subsequent omission of his name, based on a restrictive interpretation not expressly stated in the proviso, has materially affected his prospects of promotion. In these circumstances, the impugned communication cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the applicant had not completed five years in the clerical cadre. The eligibility condition must be applied in accordance with its language and the applicable classification instructions. Since the respondents have not demonstrated that the applicant’s earlier service in Level-1 is excluded by the governing provision, the basis on which his name was omitted from the final panel is unsustainable.

36. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the applicant’s service in the Level-1 Group C post in the Railway Accounts Department cannot be excluded from consideration merely because the post was formerly classified as Group D or because it preceded his promotion to the clerical cadre. The wording of the proviso introduced through the 2015 corrigendum does not expressly restrict the qualifying period to service in the ministerial or clerical cadre. The respondents’ interpretation, in the absence of a specific rule supporting that restriction, cannot be accepted.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

We, therefore, find that the applicant has made out a case for interference with the impugned communication dated 07.10.2024. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to rest the decision upon any independent power of relaxation or condonation of service. The applicant’s case is to be considered in accordance with the applicable eligibility provision, properly interpreted, and the consequential relief granted on that basis.

37. The Original Application accordingly deserves to be allowed. The impugned communication dated 07.10.2024 is liable to be set aside, and the respondents are required to reconsider the applicant’s claim for inclusion in the final panel seniority list and promotion to the post of Senior Section Officer, Accounts, in accordance with the interpretation of the applicable provision set out above and with the consequential benefits admissible under the rules.

Order:

38. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is allowed in the following terms:

(i) The communication dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A8) is hereby set aside.

CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA

(ii) The respondents are directed to include the applicant’s name in the final panel seniority list and promote him to the post of Senior Section Officer at par with the candidates promoted vide Annexure-A6, with all consequential benefits admissible under the applicable rules.

(iii) The above directions shall be implemented expeditiously and, in any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iv) All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(v) There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/cv/ CHHAYA VERMA

CHHAY A VERMA