Aashish Navik vs M/o Railways on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-

The applicant has filed the present original application being aggrieved by not placing him correctly in the promotion order dated 04.12.2015 (Annexure A-5).

2. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot on 04.09.2006 and as per the seniority list (Annexure A-1), he was placed at Sl. No. 166 whereas the respondent no. 7 was at Sl. No.

186. Thereafter, the respondents prepared a suitability list for Loco Pilot Shunting showing the name of the applicant at Sl. 59 and that of respondent no. 7 at Sl. No. 60. While the promotion order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure A-3) to the post of Loco Pilot Shunting was issued, the respondent no. 7 was promoted despite the fact that he was below the applicant in the suitability list. Further, the applicant was promoted vide order dated 06.12.2013. When the applicant was promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goods on 04.12.2015, he was shown at the bottom of the list whereas the respondent no. 7 and 14

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

other junior persons have been shown above to him. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a representation dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure A-6). Having received no response, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 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 applicant has stated that the respondent no. 7 and 14 other juniors have become senior to the applicant due to the grant of benefit of reservation in promotion, which is against the settled principle of law. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicant 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 respondents have contested the OA and have filed their reply. Referring to the contents of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that applicant and the respondent no. 7, both were found suitable for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot (Shunting) and in the suitability list dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure A- 2), the name of the applicant and the respondent no. 7 was shown at

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

Sl. No. 59 and 60 respectively. The respondent no. 7 being SC candidate got promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Shunting vide order dated 03.12.2013 against vacant post of SC quota. The respondents have further contended that there were 58 vacant posts of Loco Pilot Shunting in general category. Since, the applicant’s name was appeared at Sl. 59, therefore, he could not be promoted on 03.12.2013. However, he was promoted as Loco Pilot Shunting vide order dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure A-4). Therefore, when the applicant got promoted to the post of Loco Pilot Goods, he has been rightly placed at Sl. No. 69 on the basis of the seniority position in the Loco Pilot Shunting category.

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 applicant.

6. It is noted that the applicant is aggrieved by his placement at the bottom of the promotion list dated 04.12.2015. The contention of the applicant is that the respondent no. 7 has wrongly been placed above him by giving him the benefit of reservation in promotion. In support of his claim, the applicant has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj (Supra).

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

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 absences 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 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 Loco Pilot Goods, the respondents have merely

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

followed the relevant Master Circular 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. 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

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

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. 381/2016 is allowed. The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to promotion qua the applicant as well as the respondent no. 7 to the post of Loco Pilot Goods made vide order dated 04.12.2015 in strict compliance of the principle laid down by the Apex Court. The respondents shall comply 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