JUDGMENT
S. Manickavasagam, Member (A)
1. The applicants in this OA are working as Accounts Clerks in the Southern Railway. It is their contention that they have been denied the chance of promotion to the cadre of Junior Accounts Assistant (JAA for short) when the
Railway Board relaxed the direct recruitment quota for promotion from among the departmental staff. They have challenged the office order No. G/179/C/Admn./95/96 dated 22.3.1996.
2. The case in brief is as follows:
In the cadre of Accounts Clerk, 75% of the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment through the Railway Recruitment Board and 25% by promotion by selection from Group ‘D’ Staff. Such Accounts Clerks are eligible for promotion as Junior Accounts against 20% of the quota, which again has been sub-divided into 75% to qualified Appendix-II passed Clerks and 25% as promotion quota to non-qualified Accounts Clerks with five years service and after passing a written test.
3. It is the contention of the official respondents that a representation made by the AIRF in the PHM that the direct recruitment quota for filling up the post of Junior Accounts Assistants may be diverted for promotion of Appendix-II qualified Clerks to mitigate the stagnation in the cadre. Similar views were also expressed by some of the Zonal Railways to the Board that a large number of Appendix-II qualified Accounts Clerks have been awaiting promotion as Junior Accounts Assistants for a long time for want of vacancies.
4. Having regard to the representation made by the Association and the points urged by the various Zonal Railways, the Railway Board relaxed as a one time measure and released 33-1/3% of the direct recruitment quota vacancies in the grade of Junior Accounts Assistant to be filled by promotion of Appendix-II qualified Accounts Clerks. It’was also brought to our notice by the learned counsel representing the official respondents that no other Association had made any similar representation in this regard and therefore the Railway Board had no occasion to consider their request. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants that some representations have been made in this regard after issue of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the official respondents said that the same will be considered if so desired by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that Accounts Clerks irrespective of the stream from which they come, perform the same functions and also enjoy the same benefit, such as, salary etc. Therefore there cannot be any artificial distinction in the cadre of Accounts Clerk. Therefore it was argued by the learned counsel that when the Railway Board decided to release a portion of the direct recruitment quota vacancies to be filled in by departmental candidates, it ought to have made equally applicable to the Accounts Clerks with 5 years experience and who qualify in the departmental examination for selection.
6. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the official respondents that the Railway Board after going through the stagnation in the cadre of Appendix-II passed Accounts Clerks and in order to maintain the morale of the staff and having regard to the points urged by the Various zonal railways, the Railway Board had decided upon the number of vacancies to be released from the direct recruitment quota in favour of departmental candidates. In view of the fact that no such difficulty was brought to the notice of the Railway Board, they were not in a position to decide in respect of persons who are similarly placed like the private respondents in the instant case and the learned counsel was of the view that as and when the applicants make a proper representation, the Railway Board will consider such representation and take appropriate decision. It was also pointed out that it may not be proper now to unsettle the promotions made way back in 1994 and in 19196 based on the Railway Board’s orders regarding one time relaxation.
7. Heard both the counsels and gone through the averments in the OA and the replies filed by the official respondents. There was no appearance for private respondents.
8. Irrespective of the fact as to how the Accounts Clerks are recruited, it is a fact that they perform the same functions and draw the same salary. It is also a fact that the Accounts Clerks are eligible for promotion as Junior Accounts Assistants whenever there is a vacancy in that grade, but with a certain proportion, viz. 25% of the vacancies meant for the departmental quota is given to them. Thus in all respects Accounts Clerks who are other than Appendix II passed persons are treated at par in all respects, except that they were given a smaller representation in the cadre of Junior Accounts Assistants.
9. Therefore it would stand to reason that whenever any vacancy is released in the departmental quota, either in the normal course or by way of one time relaxation, such posts should be shared in the same proportion of 75% and 25%. It is not known as to why all the vacancies released from the direct recruitment quota were given only to the Appendix-II passed Accounts Clerks. The classification of creating are artificial difference between an Appendix-II passed Accounts Clerk and a non-qualified Accounts Clerk seems to be uncalled for under these circumstances. However we also notice that a lot of time has lapsed since the issue of the 1994 order and the consequential promotion and also the 1996 orders and the consequential promotions. But that does not take away the right of the non-qualified Accounts Clerks to claim their quota of share in such promotional avenues.
10. At the admission stage itself it has been held by the Hon’ble Bench that the orders passed by the official respondents based on the relaxation issued by the Railway Board in the year 1994 is time barred and therefore cannot be challenged at this point of time. However it was held at the time of admission that the orders passed consequent to the decision taken on 22.3.1996 is liable to be challenged. Therefore we do not propose to pass any order with reference to the relaxation order issued by the Railway Board in the year 1994. However the following order is passed with reference to the relaxation order issued in 1996:–
(i) Denial of the right to get promotion in the number of posts which were released consequent to relaxation of the direct recruitment quota, giving certain percentage to the employees already working as Accounts Clerks and as far as the applicants who are also Accounts Clerks, yet to be promoted, is denial of the equality right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore the applicants also should get the benefit of the said relaxation.
11. During the course of arguments, neither the applicants nor the respondents were able to throw light on the exact parameters which led to the conclusion at the first instance to release the vacancies out of the direct recruitment quota and secondly what is the extent of stagnation in the cadre of Appendix-II passed Accounts Clerks and non-qualified Accounts Clerks. In the absence of such data, the Bench is unable to give a clear direction about the percentage of vacancies that should go to the non-qualified Accounts Clerks. This is a matter of detail which the department will have to consider.
(ii) Accordingly it is direct that the official respondents shall consider the promote applicants for the post of Junior Accounts Assistants released out of the direct recruitment quota by way of relaxation as a one time exemption. It is open to the official respondents to fix appropriate ratio depending on the stagnation obtaining in the non-qualified accounts Clerks cadre, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the official respondents.
(iii) It is left for the official respondents to take a policy decision regarding fixation of the quota for promotion of non-qualified Accounts Clerks cadre for the purpose of promotion by relaxing the direct recruitment quota as per the stagnation and also as per the qualified persons to be promoted. This has to be in addition to the relaxation of the rule relating to direct recruitment, i.e. 33-1/ 3%. To put it more clearly the official respondents are directed to fix the necessary quota in addition that 33-1.3% by relaxing the direct recruitment quota.
(iv) In case the applicants are qualified and come within the particular quota to be fixed by the official respondents, the promotions made should be from the date the promotions as are given to the private respondents and such promotions should be only a proforma promotion, counting for the purpose of seniority only and not for payment of monetary benefits and the applicants are to be adjusted against regular vacancies that are likely to arise.
(v) This order is confined with regard to the impugned order of giving relaxation of 33-1/3% of relaxing the direct recruitment quota only dated 22.3.1996. (vi) With regard to subsequent relaxations the official respondents are directed to keep in mind the observations of the Tribunal with regard to equality right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India with regard to further promotions to be made. 12. The OA is disposed of as above with no order as to costs.