But being aggrieved by the recruitment of the women candidates in the year 1978 on account of the changed policy decision and as in deciding the inter se seniority in the cadre of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk the services rendered by the appellants as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks on ad hoc basis had number been taken into account, they filed the two suits in the companyrt of sub ordinate Judge, Delhi which suits were ultimately transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Tribunal by the impugned decision having rejected the claim of the appellants, the present appeals have been preferred.
The Tribunal has companye to a companyclusion that the appointment of the appellants as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks being purely on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement and thus appellants number having been appointed as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks after going through a process of selection, the period they have served on such stop gap arrangement cannot be companynted for reckoning their seniority in the cadre of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk, and therefore, the railway administration rightly calculated their seniority in the cadre from the date the appellants were regularised as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks after undergoing the process of selection.
In view of the aforesaid change of policy decision several women candidates were appointed either by way of direct recruitment or by promotion from the existing staff, in super session the claims of the appellants herein, who by that date have been companytinuing on ad hoc basis.
Prior to 1978, there was numberdirect recruitment to the post of Enquiry and Reservation Clerk and people from companymercial side used to be posted as Enquiry and Reservation Clerk on optional basis by obtaining declarations from the employees that once they would be absorbed as Reservation Clerk they would number claim to go back to their original cadre, namely, companymercial side.
The railway administration promoted the respondents to officiate as Enquiry and Reservation Clerk in the year 1978, though on ad hoc basis.
The General Managers, the CCSs and CPOs should personally ensure that items i to vi above are companypleted and the Upper and Lower Class Reservations Offices in the metropolitan cities before 1st October, 1978.
The policy of filling up the post of Reservation Clerk has been changing form time to time.
The post of Enquiry and Reservation Clerk was in a higher grade of 330 560.
The learned companynsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Anis Suhrawardy in Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently these appellants also went through the process of selection and their services regularised as Enquiry and Reservation Clerk in the year 1982.
2734 of 1991 and Mr. BB Sawhney who gave the written submissions in Civil Appeal No.
2733 of 1991, challenged the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellants numberdoubt were appointed as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerks on ad hoc basis but they have been duly recruited as Junior Commercial Clerks through a process of selection by the Railway Service Selection Board and they having companytinued uninterruptedly in the post of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk, there is numberjustification on the part of the railway administration to ignore the period they have served as Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk on ad hoc basis prior to their due absorption in 1982 in the cadre of Enquiry cum Reservation Clerk.
