TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DLW. On July 19, 1962, the appellants were appointed Skilled Artisans after successfully completing a training for three years and a half. The regular channel of promotion to higher posts from the post of Skilled Artisan is in the following order:- 1. Skilled Artisan. 2. Highly Skilled Grade-II. 3. Highly Skilled Grade-I. 4. Chargeman-C. 5. Chargeman-B. 6. Chargeman-A. 7. Assistant Foreman. 8. Foreman. 3. It is apparent from the above channel of promotion that the next higher post to which the appellants could be promoted was the post of Highly Skilled Grade-II. In September, 1963, the appellants were, however, promoted to the post of Instructor-C which is equivalent to the post of Chargeman-C. There is a controversy between the parties as to whether the post of Instructor-C was an ex cadre post or not. According to the appellants, it was an interchangeable post with Chargeman-C. We shall have occasion to consider the question later in this judgment. It may be stated, however, that there is no dispute that the post of Instructor-C is a selection post and the appellants were selected and promoted to existing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant rules contained in the Railway Establishment Code and the Railway Establishment Manual. The Division Bench also found that the DLW project was not a temporary project, but appeared to be a permanent project. Upon the above findings, the Division Bench upheld the quashing of the seniority list and directed the General Manager, DLW, to prepare a fresh seniority list in the tight of the statutory provisions contained in the Railway Establishment Code and the Railway Establishment Manual. After the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, what the Railway Board did before preparation of any seniority list by the General Manager, DLW, was to issue Advance Correction Slip No. 70 inserting rules 324 to 328 in the Railway Establishment Manual after rule 323 in Chapter III. Of the rules, so inserted, that which vitally affected the appellants is rule 328(2) which provides as follows:- "328(2). Selection and promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive works from 1.8.1961 up to the date of notification of these rules shall not be valid." 6. The Rules were amended by the Board by virtue of its power under rule 157 which provides that the Railway Board have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection and promotions conferred no rights on the appellants to hold the posts to which they were promoted. Upon the above findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave. 9. Mr. Sanghi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged before us the validity of rule 328(2) as inserted in the Railway Establishment Manual by the Advance Correction Slip No. 70. It has been already noticed that in view of the said rules, the promotions of the appellants up to the position of Chargeman-A stand set aside and the appellants are reverted back to their original position of Skilled Artisan. In other words, the length of service of the appellants for a period of about nine years has been completely wiped out by rule 328(2). The High Court took the view that the promotions which were granted to the appellants were by way of interim measure and did not confer on them any title to the posts to which they were promoted. In support of that view, the High Court has referred to the order of the General Manager, DLW, dated May 14/16, 1962 which reads as follows:- "As an interim measure, all supervisory technical posts in the Mec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said rule is that at all times suitable candidates might not be available and just to avoid administrative inconvenience, the promotions are given from posts below the feeder post. The said circular of the General Manager, DLW, dated November 2, 1963 does not show that the promotion to the posts of selection and/or promotion to the posts of Instructors would be by way of interim measure or ad hoc arrangement. In the absence of any such indication, it will not be unreasonable to presume that such promotions were anything other than by way of interim measure or ad hoc arrangement, as contended on behalf of the respondents. In view of the said circular dated November 2, 1963, the appellants applied for the posts of Instructors and they were selected after the requisite tests. In the office order No. 3421 dated December 30, 1963, appointing the appellants to the post of Instructor (Machinist Gr.-C), it is clearly stated that they are appointed to the post of Instructor (Machinist Gr.-C) against existing vacancies. 12. Again, a similar circular dated July 18, 1964 was issued from the office of the General Manager, DLW, with regard to the filling up of the posts of Chargeman-B in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tructor-C or Chargeman-C on an ad hoc basis or by way of an interim measure, as held by the High Court in the impugned judgment. If they were appointed on ad hoc or purely temporary basis, they could not have been promoted to the post of Chargeman-B and the said order No. 25 dated January 22, 1966 would have been quite inconsistent with such ad hoc or temporary appointments. 14. At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to the counter affidavit of the Railway Administration in the previous writ proceedings. In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated inter alia that the post of Junior Instructor carries the same scale of pay as Chargeman-'C' and that the two posts being of the same rank and scale, staff of the one post could be transferred to the other post and vice versa. This statement in the counter affidavit of the Railway Administration clearly indicates that the post of Instructor-C and Chargeman-C are interchangeable posts. Further, it is stated as follows:- "Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 (which include the three appellants herein) in the first instance offered for the post of Instructors in grade Rs.205-280 (equivalent to Chargeman'C' grade) and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ proceedings the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the seniority list and directed the General Manager, DLW, to prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of statutory provisions contained in the Railway Establishment Code and the Railway Establishment Manual. The Principal ground for quashing the seniority list was that the General Manager, DLW, had no authority to frame guidelines or rules for the purpose of preparing the seniority list. It has also been noticed that while the learned Single Judge took the view that the guidelines or rules framed by the General Manager were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Division Bench took a contrary view and after considering the rules or guidelines in detail came to the finding that none of the guidelines or rules framed by the General Manager was contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Indeed, the Division Bench was of the view that no objection could be taken to the said rules or guidelines, but it had to quash the seniority list framed on the basis of such guidelines or rules inasmuch as the General Manager had no authority to frame such rules or guidelines. Accordingly, t....