(1). Original applicant Shekhar Chand Jain filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), stating that while he was functioning as Senior Transport Instructor in the Zonal Training Centre, Western Railway, Udaipur, two of his juniors were promoted on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 w.e.f. 18.4.94. On a representation made by him, he was also given ad hoc promotion w.e.f. 17.11.94. Though he was senior, but he was superseded by his juniors in ad hoc promotion. He retired from service on 30.11.94. His grievance was that because of his late promotion in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500, he was put to recurring financial loss in pensionary benefits as compared to his juniors. He made several representations and ultimately, his last representation dated 29.9.96 was rejected by letter dated 11.3.97 at Annex. A/6 to the original application and his further representation was also rejected on 28.5.97, Annex. A/1 to the original application. He, therefore, filed application before the CAT for redressal of his grievances.
(2). The respondents rejected the representations of the applicant on the ground that the benefit of promotion under the Next Below Rule (NBR) was applicable only in the case of regular promotion and not in ad hoc promotions.
(3). However, the learned Tribunal held that, to cover the cases of promotions on ad hoc basis, the provision of NBR was applicable and person should have been considered for promotion under the said Rule even when he was on deputation on ex-cadre post. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the original applicant-present respondent with a direction to the respondents-present petitioners to give all consequential benefits to the original applicant from the date of the ad hoc promotion, i.e. 18.4.94 in the scale of Rs. 2375-3500 and fix his pay accordingly from that date and grant allowances, retiral benefits etc., and accordingly, quashed the letter dated 11.3.97 (Annex.A/6). This has been challenged by the Union of India and Others by way of writ petition which is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(4). Strictly speaking, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. This Court cannot correct an error committed by the Tribunal on facts or even on law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yusuf vs. Mohd. Mustgin (1).
(5). Having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the original application filed b the respondent original applicant In view of clear provisions mentioned in para 216 (i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I (IREM). Para 216 (i) reads as under:-
“216 A. Ad hoc promotion against selection and non-selection posts:-
(i) Ad hoc promotions should be avoided as far as possible both in selection and non-selection posts, and where they are found inescapable and have to be made in the exigency of service, they should be
resorted to only sparingly and only for a short duration of 3 to 4 months. The ad hoc promotion should be ordered only from amongst seniormost suitable staff. As a rule a junior should not be promoted ignoring his senior.”
(6). However, learned Counsel Mr. Vyas, for the petitioner tried to submit the Rule 1325(4) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Guiding principle for the working of the next below rule has clearly provided that the Next Below Rule will be applicable only in case of regular promotion and not in ad hoc promotions. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Vyas for the simply reason that there is a clear position in para 216 (i) of IREM which clearly provides that in ad hoc promotions also, senior most person should be promoted and junior should not be promoted ignoring his seniority.
(7). Before parting, we must state that when the juniors to the petitioner were promoted on 18.4.94, the petitioner made a representation to the Authorities and after considering his representation, he was also granted promotion w.e.f. 17.11.94. Thus, it was clear that the petitioner was wrongly superseded by his juniors on 18.4.94. Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondents committed an error in superseding the petitioner by giving promotions to his juniors on 18.4.94 and in that view of the matter, if the learned Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent original applicant, then we will not interfere with such orders in our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(8). The writ petition is dismissed. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the stay application also stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated.