Under this Scheme, there were to be two grades of service i Grade I Upper Division Clerk and ii Grade H Lower Division Clerk.
The order, appointing the petitioners, as Officiating Upper.
The criterion for promoting Lower Division Clerks, to the posts of Upper Division Clerks and Assistants, was, that persons, who obtained 50 or more of the marks, were to be promoted, as Officiating Assistants, and those who obtained between 40 and 49, were to be promoted, as Officiating Upper Division Clerks.
Grade I of the Service, and this modification was also to have effect, from the date of the initial companystitution of the Service, viz.,
The categories of staff, eligible to appear for the test, as well as the subjects for the written tests, were mentioned, therein.
Division Clerks, is Annexure 3, dated February 1, 1957.
3, 6 to 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21,, 26, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39, to 45, 47, 50, 53 to 55, 58, 61, 64, 66, 69, 76, 77, 81, 82, 87, 91, 94, 96, 97, 103 to 105, 108, 123, 136 and 150 in W.P. No.
It is the claim of the petitioners that they were promoted, on a regular basis, as Upper Division Clerks, and that a panel of Assistants and Upper Division Clerks, was formed, by, the 2nd respondent.
R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos.
96 and 165 of 1967.
Similarly, Upper Division Clerks, who were promoted as officiating Assistants, were also promoted, on the basis of their seniority, in the Upper Division Clerks Grade and, therefore, their seniority, in the Lower Division Clerks Grade, was thus reflected in the Assistants Grade.
Meanwhile, the framing of a scheme for the Railway Board Secretariat Clerical Service, was in the offing, and such a scheme, was ultimately issued, under Annexure 4, on February 5, 1957.
On March 30, 1963, some of the provisions, companytained in Annexure 4, were modified, by Annexure 7.
The scheme was for filling the posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Division Clerks and such of the Upper Division Clerks who can be promoted as Assistants.
In 1965, a final panel was drawn up, strictly on the basis of the Scheme, for promotion to the Grade of Upper Division Clerks, in which the names of all the Lower Division Clerks were arranged, strictly in accordance with their seniority positions, in that Grade.
K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta for the petitioner in W.P. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In both these writ petitions, under Art.
96 of1967 .
There is numbercontroversy legal and did number companytravene any provisions of the Constitution, examination, and they also successfully got through the interview.
December 1, 1954.
His grievance is that while he was holding the post of such Assistant, from 1958, he has been illegally, and without any justification, reverted, as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from June 9, 1967, as per the impugned order, dated June.16, 1967 Annexure 16 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad and N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos.
The Scheme Annexure 4 , was actually framed on February 5, 1957, and the Railway Boards Secretariat Clerical Service was to be organized, in the manner, set out therein.
96 of 1967, he joined service, on July 16, 1955, as Lower Division Clerk, was promoted, with effect from February 2, 1957, as Upper Division Clerk and further promoted, as Assistant, on February 3, 1958.
165 of 1967.
As the posts of Upper Division Clerks were number selection posts, so far as promotion quota was companycerned, they had to be filled in, on the basis of seniority suitability and hence a particular officers seniority, as Lower Division Clerk, was duly reflected in his seniority as Upper Division Clerk.
As both the petitioners had passed the test, they were promoted, as Officiating Upper Division Clerks, With effect from February 2, 1957.
Wherever necessary, we shall advert to any separate order, that has been referred to, by the petitioner, in Writ Petition No.
No doubt, the order, Annexure 3, dated February 1, 1957, promoting the petitioners, as Upper Division Clerks, may, on a superficial reading of that order, give the impression that the promotion, is on a permanent basis, and from which further promotion is to be made, to the Grade of Assistants, but, in view of what is stated, on behalf of the Railway Board, the promotion, under Annexure 3, is again, a temporary promotion, because the Scheme, Annexure 4, was to companye into force, within a very short time, and that the promotions were made, only on a provisional basis.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
96 of 1967 .
The second respondent simultaneously took a decision that posts ,of Upper Division Clerks, which were introduced at about that time, may also be filled up, on the basis of the results of the test, which was, numberdoubt, primarily held for the purpose of filling the posts of Assistants.
The order promoting the petitioners, as Assistants, Annexure 5, dated February 1, 1958, has been referred to, already, and that order clearly shows that the promotion was only a short term, temporary arrangement, on an officiating basis, and that numberclaim companyld be based upon that promotion.
96 of 1967.,
The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, regarding the circumstances, under which the Scheme was framed, in companysultation with the Union Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
One of the modi fications, effected under Annexure 7, related to the manner of filling up of permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies, in.
The Union of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, and the Secretary, Railway Board, are respondents I and 2, respectively, in these proceedings.
165 of 1967, he joined as a Lower Division Clerk, on September 14, 1954, was promoted as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from February 2, 1957 and was further promoted, as Assistant, on February 3, 1958.
K. Sen, A. P. Chatterjee and M. M. Kshatriya, for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
Accordingly, the names of the petitioners, who had been promoted as Officiating Upper, Division Clerks, in 1957, were entered, in that panel, in accordance with their inter se seniority as Lower Division Clerks.
The other respondents are officers, working under the 2nd respondent, who, according to the petitioners, have been given preferential treatment, by way of promotion, under the orders, impugned, in these proceedings.
32 ,of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to have quashed, certain orders passed by, the 2nd respondent and, in particular, the order dated June 16, 1967, reverting them, as Upper Division Clerks, with effect from June 9, 1967.
165 of 1967 .
On August 22, 1956, the second respondent issued a Circular Annexure 1, about having decided to hold a test, for drawing up a panel of staff companysidered suitable for promotion, to the Grade of Assistants.
Petition under Art.
His grievance is that while he was so holding the post of Assistant, from 1958, he has been illegally, and without any justification, reverted as Upper Division Clerk, with effect from June 9, 1967, as per Annexure 16.
According to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
According to the Railway Board, these promotions, made of the petitioners, either as Upper Division Clerk, in the first instance, or, later, as Assistant, were purely on a temporary and ad hoc basis, pending the framing of the Railway Boards Secretariat Clerical Service Re organization Scheme, which was in companytemplation, at the material time.
1 and 2 in both the petitions .
Similarly according to the petitioner, in Writ Petition No.
The initial companystitution of the service, was to be with effect from December 1, 1954.
The authorised permanent strength of the Service, in Grade 1, was fixed at 45, and of Grade II,, at 82.
