Judgment:
1. The dispute involved in this OA is whether the applicant who was recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board for the post of Apprentice Mechanic. He was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board through an examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board in the year 1983. On 12.04.1985 he completed his probation. However, the respondents did not issue him the appointment letter.
2. The two private respondent No. 4 and 5 however, were recruited for the same post by the departmental selection. They were previously working with the respondents as regular employee and in 1984 they were selected for the post of mechanic. Thereafter they underwent training for fifteen months and completed the same on 09.05.1985. The private respondent No. 4 and 5 however, were offered appointment letter on 18.05.2005 and the applicant was offered appointment letter on 24.05.2005. For the reasons all the applicant join six days after the date of joining of the private respondents he was treated junior to them.
3. Being aggrieved by this decision of the respondents the applicant has filed OA No. 1263/96 in which the Tribunal had passed the following orders: 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the representation filed by the applicant was not properly considered and it has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30.5.1996 without proper self direction to the related provisions contained in the Railway Establishment Manual namely paragraph 302 and 306 of I.R.E.M. The order dated 30.5.1996 is cryptic one and does not indicate the basis on which the seniority of the applicant was determined. The dispute regarding seniority of the applicant vis-`-vis respondents No. 5 and 6 needs to be decided after proper self direction to instructions contained in paragraphs 302 and 306 of the IREM Vol-I revised addition 1989. The Tribunal, it is well settled, exercises a secondary role while primary role is that of departmental authority. In the present case, the competent authority doe not appear to have performed the primary role in accordance with law after proper self direction to the provisions contained in IREM referred to herein above.
7. We are of the view that the order dated 30.05.1996 deserves to be set side and the matter remitted to the authorities concerned with law after proper self direction to the relevant provisions.
8. Accordingly, the O.A. succeeds in part. The order dated 30.5.1996 is quashed. The Chief Workshop Manager (P), N. E. Railway, respondent No. 4, Gorakhpur shall reconsider the representation filed by the applicant and dispose it of by means of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in the light of observations made herein above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The applicant shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation along with a copy of this order.
4. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal the respondents issued the order dated 25.03.2004 which has been challenged by the applicant in the present OA. The applicant has sought the direction of the Tribunal to quash the impugned order for the grounds which are mainly as follows: (a) Earlier in OA No. 1263/96 the Tribunal had directed that the respondents should give it a fresh look and decide the seniority of the applicant in terms of provisions 302 and 306 of IREM Vol 1. The applicant is of the view that the stand taken by the respondents that para 306 of IREM relates to only departmental selection and, therefore, is not applicable in his case is not correct.
(b) If provision 306 is applied properly to decide the seniority of the applicant vis-`-vis the private respondents, he would have been treated senior to them.
(c) The applicant has also contended that the respondents did not deliberately issue an appointment letter to him till 24.05.1985.
Although there was scope of the same because the applicant had completed training on 12.04.1985.
5. On the basis of the above mentioned grounds the applicant has requested the Tribunal to quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to decide his seniority vis-`-vis the private respondents afresh by correctly applying the relevant rules of IREM.6. In countering the allegations made by the applicant the respondents have stated that the respondents did not commit any error in interpretation the relevant provisions i.e. 302 and 306 of the IREM while Rule 302 applies for considering seniority dispute between direct recruits and candidates selected through departmental examination. Rule 306 applies for relative seniority amongst candidates who are selected by the same process. In other words, according to respondents, if the applicant was a departmental candidate selected through departmental selection process, he could have been treated at par with the private respondents and his seniority would have been decided in terms of Rule 306 of IREM.7. While we have considered this explanation of the respondents with regard to the interpretation of Rs. 306, however, we note that in the impugned order the explanation given is somewhat different. The explanation which has been given in the impugned order is that Rule 306 applies only to departmental candidates. However, in our view this would not materially alter the situation for the reasons that 306 speaks of candidates who are selected by the same process and the factual position is that the applicant was selected as a direct recruit through the RRB whereas the private respondents were selected departmentally. This brings us to the remaining point made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the respondents were in a position to offer an appointment to the applicant before 18.05.1985.
However, he was deliberately kept in waiting so that the private respondent No. 4 and 5 put their appointment letter so that by application of rule 302 they could be treated as senior. This point however, has been contradicted by the learned Counsel for the respondents who has brought to our notice the letter of appointment dated 24.05.1985 issued to the applicant. This is annexed as Annexure A-2 in the OA. Although it has been mentioned in the appointment that six selectees completed their training on 16.4.1985 and the rest on 09.05.1985, it has been mentioned in the note in the appointment letter that the candidate i.e. the applicant No. 6 of this OA could not be given appointment letter immediately on completion of the probation as the information regarding availability of vacancy from Divisional Chief Mechanical Engineer, Gorakhpur was not received before hand. As soon as it was received the offer of appointment was given.
8. By referring to this record the learned Counsel for the respondents had refute the allegation that there was any deliberate approach to scuttle the chances of the applicant in becoming senior over the private respondents. The question of seniority of the applicant vis-`-vis the private respondents was decided by applying the provision of 302 of IREM correctly and, therefore, there was no error/illegality in the same order. He has, therefore, requested the Tribunal to accept this contention and uphold the letter of the respondents dated 25.03.2004.
9. Having considered the matter in its entire factual matrix and having applied our mind to the same, we are unable to find any merit in the OA, which is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.