MOOLCHAND BADHAI vs M/o Railways on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-

The applicants have filed the present original application challenging the order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) whereby juniors of the applicants have promoted by giving the benefit of reservation.

2. The contention of the applicants is that vide order dated 20.07.2015, the respondents have issued a suitability list of 40 candidates for promotion to the post of Senior Technician including juniors to them by giving benefit of reservation in promotion (Annexure A-3). Thereafter, vide order dated 31.07.2015, 39 Technician of S&T Department were promoted to the post of Senior Technician on the basis of restructuring. The grievance of the applicants is that while issuing this promotion order, the respondents have promoted juniors to the applicant by giving benefit of reservation in promotion. Therefore, they were denied the benefit of restructuring and could not be promoted to the post of Senior Technician despite being senior in Technician category. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed a representation dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure A-5). Having received no response, the applicants have filed the present OA.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

3. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that despite the applicants hold the requisite seniority for being considered for the restructuring and normal promotion, they were denied promotion for grant of reservation in promotion as a result of which the private respondent nos. 5 to 11 have been empanelled though they were junior to them. Thus, the action of the respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the respondent nos. 5 to 11 have been promoted vide order dated 31.07.2014 by granting benefit of reservation in promotion, whereas the applicants have been granted normal promotion vide order dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure A-2) though they were senior to them . In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicants has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 212 and prayed for placement of the applicant above the respondent no. 7 in the order dated 04.12.2015.

4. The official respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents) have contested the OA and have filed their reply. Referring to the contents of said reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that as per the Railway Board Estt. Rule No.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

177/10, the reservation in promotion is being followed unless any amendment or modification is received from the Railway Board. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the Nodal Ministry i.e. DOPT vide OM dated 11.02.2016 has clarified that the issue emanating from Supreme Court judgment dated 09.10.2006 in the case of M. Nagraj is still under examination. Therefore, as per the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, there is no impediment in granting reservation in promotion. No exception can be taken if reservation is granted to the SC/ST candidates in promotion as it is constitutionally permissible. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the action of the respondents is justified and the OA filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. We have also considered the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the applicants.

6. It is noted that the applicants are aggrieved by non- empanelment of their name in the list for promotion by giving the benefit of restructuring on the ground that the persons junior to them i.e. the private respondents, were empanelled by granting benefit of reservation in promotion. The contention of the applicants counsel is that the respondent nos. 5 to 11 hav wrongly been placed

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

above them by giving him the benefit of reservation in promotion. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicants has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj (Supra).

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagraj (Supra) has held that reservation in promotion even by selection method cannot be automatic or resorted to mechanically. In the event if any Government proposes to make reservations in promotions it must first conduct an exercise in the nature of survey and collect quantifiable data to satisfy the court that there was a compelling need to resort to reservation on the ground of lack of or inadequate representation of the class of community intended to be given the benefit of promotion. The proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagraj has been reiterated in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar dated 27.04.2012 (Civil Appeal No. 2608/2011). It is noted that in the present case, no such exercise or survey has been conducted by the respondents in the absence of which there can be no question of reservation in the proposed promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Goods. In view of the settled law, we are of the considered view that such promotions may

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

be made strictly based upon seniority cum suitability as per seniority of the candidates regardless of their caste/tribe status.

8. Having regard to the argument advanced on behalf of respondents that in preparation of the panels and promotion order for the post of Senior Technician, the respondents have merely followed the relevant RBE No. 177/2016 on reservation of SC/ST candidates in Railways. This argument cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record to suggest that any exercise, as prescribed by the Apex Court, had been undertaken by the department.

9. Having regard to the clear, consistent and explicit view held by the Apex Court with regard to the question of reservation in promotion, it is apparent that unless the controlling factor of the compelling reasons stated in Article 16(4) are met, no reservation in promotion can be proceeded with by the State. In case they take up such exercise then in each case the State would have to require to place before the court the quantifiable data and satisfy the court that such reservation has become necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs /STs without affecting general efficiency in service. The concept of efficiency, backwardness and inadequacy of representation have to be identified and measured and that would be contingent upon the availability of relevant data.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

This would depend on numerous factors. Apparently, it is for this reason that the enabling provisions are required to be made because each competing claim seeks to achieve certain goals. How best these claims can be optimized, can only be done by the administration in the context of prevailing local conditions in public employment. If the State concerned fails to identify and measure the backwardness , inadequacy and affecting of efficiency then even in the face of existing enabling provisions, reservation in promotion cannot be under taken.

10. In view of the facts as stated above as well as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, O.A No. 559/2016 is allowed. The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to promotion qua the applicants as well as the respondent nos. 5 to 11 to the post of Senior Technician31.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) in strict compliance of the principle laid down by the Apex Court. The respondents shall comply with the above direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.

12. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya)

(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member

Judicial Member Anand…

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY