The appellant applied for absorption in the Senior Scale of I.R.P.S. The Ministry of Railway processed the matter and after companysulting the UPSC, the appellant was appointed as Senior Scale Officer in the Senior Scale of IRPS on 1 8 1989.
A numberification was issued by the Railways Board to fill up 50 of the vacancies in the Senior Scale of Indian Railway Personnel Service from other services under the Ministry of Railway in terms of Rule 8 l c ii of the said Notification dated 20 12 1975.
Thirdly it was numbericed by the Tribunal that such a lateral induction of the RPF officers in IRPS would number serve any purpose because the kind of the service which she has been discharging is altogether different and the services of the RPF which is an army and experience gained there can number be utilised in the IRPS.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the said Rule but quashed the appointment of the appellant.
In challenging the order under appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that when the Tribunal had upheld the validity of the Rules and as long as the appointment made, falls within the description of the officer eligible for appointment under those Rules, there was hardly any option for the Tribunal number to have extended that benefit to the appellant.
She was appointed as Assistant Security Officer, Group A on 2 9 1981.
An application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, challenging the validity of the Rule 8 1 c ii and also the appointment of the appellant to IRPS.
The appellant had appeared for the companybined U.P.S.C. examination that on selection was allotted to the .
Railway Protection Force.
