Judgment:
1. Through this OA applicants have assailed Annexure A-1 dated 20.6.2005 whereby their names have been omitted from the field of eligibility to appear in the written examination for promotion to the post of Goods Driver grade Rs. 5000-8000 in the light of Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997 (Annexure A-2). Applicants have also challenged Annexure A-2 dated 17.4.1997 whereby services of those who are transferred to a new unit on their own request are placed at the bottom seniority against direct recruitment quota and their eligibility for consideration for promotion has to be counted on the basis of service rendered in the absorbing unit alone.
2. Vide order dated 25.8.2005 respondents were directed to allow applicants to appear in the supplementary written examination for the post of Goods Driver provisionally, however, the selection was subjected to final outcome of the OA.3. According to applicants, they were initially appointed as Diesel and Electrical Assistants in grade Rs. 3050-4590 during the period 1993 to 1998. While working under the Western/Central Railways they were transferred to Delhi Division of the Northern Railway on their own request accepting bottom seniority, in the years 2001 and 2002.
4. Admittedly, the eligibility conditions for filling up vacancies of Goods Driver are as follows: (i) Six years service (combined as Second/First Fireman/Diesel Assistants/Electrical Assistants.
(ii) Two years service as First Fireman/Diesel Assistant/Electrical Assistants.
(iii) 60000 kms experience of foot plate as Fireman, First Fireman/ Diesel Assistants/Electrical Assistants.
5. The learned Counsel of applicants submitted that respondents have treated applicants as ineligible for selection for the post of Goods Driver in terms of Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997. Relying upon order dated 4.10.2002 in OA No. 2153/2001 Sandeep Kumar Kaushik and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the learned Counsel submitted that vide these orders Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997 was quashed and set aside. As such, respondents ought not have treated applicants as ineligible for selection for the post of Goods Driver in terms of Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997. The learned Counsel further relied on Renu Mullick (Smt.) v. Union of India and Anr. (1994) 26 ATC 602, in which, in the case of a Lower Division Clerk in Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, it was held that service rendered prior to unilateral transfer at own request also counts for determining the eligibility conduction, though such transfer downgrades seniority.
6. The learned Counsel of respondents, at the outset, stated that eight out of twenty-eight candidates were appointed in grade Rs. 3050-4590 as Apprentice Diesel/Electrical Assistants and put on 39 weeks training in the year 1998. After the training they were put on independent duty in the month of August/September, 1999. They were transferred at their own request on acceptance of bottom seniority. These eight applicants do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for selection having been appointed after 31.12.1998. As regards the remaining applicants, the learned Counsel maintained that even if Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997 (Annexure A-2) is not taken into consideration, applicants are not eligible for selection for promotion to the post of Goods Driver grade Rs. 5000-8000 in terms of Railway Boards letter dated 23.8.2004 (Annexure R-II). He maintained that as the post of Goods Driver is a safety post, the service in the earlier Division prior to transfer on request cannot be taken into consideration. He further stated that Tribunals orders in the case of Sandeep Kumar Kaushik (supra) are not applicable as that case did not relate to safety post.
7. We have considered the respective contentions of parties as also perused the material on record.
8. In the case of Sandeep Kumar Kaushik (supra) the Tribunal had considered the validity of circular dated 17.4.1997. The case of Renu Mullick (supra) was also taken into consideration in that case.
Ultimately, the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997. Railway Boards circular dated 17.4.1997 having been quashed and set aside, respondents could not have applied the terms of that circular while determining the eligibility of applicants for selection to the post of Goods Driver. We find that Railway Boards later circular dated 23.8.2004 relates to the issue of service and experience in the case of personnel transferred on mutual transfer. Applicants had been transferred to Delhi Division on their own request losing their seniority. They cannot be covered under circular dated 23.8.2004, as they had not come to the new unit on mutual transfer. This circular has no relevance in their case.
9. In the light of Tribunals orders in the case of Sandeep Kumar Kaushik (supra) whereby circular dated 17.4.1997 was quashed and set aside, as also the ratio of Renu Mullick (supra), we are of the considered view that respondents could not have declared applicants ineligible for consideration for selection for the post of Goods Driver. They may have been put at bottom seniority in the new unit having been transferred on own request but their service in the earlier unit cannot be lost sight of while determining their eligibility for selection for the post of Goods Driver.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, respondents are directed to re-consider the eligibility of these applicants taking into consideration the period of their service in the earlier unit ignoring instructions contained in circular dated 17.4.1997 and if applicants are found to be eligible in this manner, their result with all consequential benefits may be declared.