1997 (9) TMI 620 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Paragraph 7.3 of the Scheme for Appointments to General Managers and Equivalent Posts in Indian Railways.
2. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
3. Consideration of Inter Se Seniority and the Application of Relaxation under Paragraph 10 of the Scheme.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Paragraph 7.3 of the Scheme:
The core issue in these appeals is the interpretation of paragraph 7.3 of the Scheme for making appointments to the posts of General Managers and equivalent in the Indian Railways. Paragraph 7.3 states, "Only such of the empanelled officers would normally be appointed to posts of General Managers and equivalent as will be able to serve for at least two years on such higher post(s)." The Supreme Court held that the residual service of at least two years should be reckoned from the date of accrual of the vacancy. This interpretation ensures fairness, transparency, and avoids unmerited hardship due to procedural or intentional delays in actual appointments.

2. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Guarantees under Articles 14 and 16:
The respondents argued that their non-appointment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court noted that once a panel of eligible officers is prepared, each officer must be considered suitable for appointment. Ignoring inter se seniority among empanelled officers without valid reasons constitutes hostile discrimination. However, the Court found no evidence of such discrimination in the appointments under review, as all appointments adhered to the correct interpretation of paragraph 7.3, considering the residual service from the date of accrual of the vacancy.

3. Consideration of Inter Se Seniority and the Application of Relaxation under Paragraph 10 of the Scheme:
The respondents contended that juniors were appointed by relaxing the provisions of paragraph 7.3 without applying similar relaxation to them, resulting in hostile discrimination. The Court emphasized that any relaxation under paragraph 10 of the Scheme must not be arbitrary or capricious and should respect inter se seniority. The Court found that no appointments were made by relaxing the requirement of paragraph 7.3 in favor of juniors over seniors. Therefore, the claims of discrimination were unfounded.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the applications of the respondents. The Court directed the Union of India to review any cases where officers were improperly bypassed and to grant notional promotion with consequential benefits if necessary. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.