By this order, the Tribunal observed that the application before the Tribunal was to direct the respondent Railways the appellant herein to quash the impugned seniority list, i.e., the seniority list of 1976 and to prepare a fresh seniority list and to make the companyfirmations and promotions inaccordance with the fresh seniority list.
On that application, the Tribunal passed the impugned order of September 14, 1988, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
246 of 1985 by order dated June 25, 1986.
That writ petition was trans ferred to the Tribunal and numbered as T.A. No.
the Class II panels of 1972 73 and 1975 76.
After both the sources of recruitment merged in the scale of Rs.200 300/Rs.250 300, a single unified cadre known as Relieving Transportation Assist ants stood companystituted.
As a result, the seniority of the personnel from the Commercial Department was affected since direct recruit Traffic Apprentices from the Traffic and Transportation Department were given seniority according to the quota and rota rule from 1954 onwards.
The companybined seniority list which was prepared in 1983 of Class III posts for promotion to Class II posts was finalised in March 1987 and was made the basis of the postponed selection to Class II service as per orders of the Tribunal and panel was issued on 13.3.1987.
246 of 1985 filed a companytempt petition being CCP No.
It appears that the respondents grievance in the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was that their seniority in the cadre of Relieving Transportation Assistants was number companyrectly fixed according to the quota rule of 2575, either because the quota rule was number ob served properly or the unfilled vacancies in the 25 per cent quota reserved for them were number carried forward from 1954 onwards.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in C.C.P. No.
It further appears that according to the statement made on behalf of the appellant Railways, the Railways had already worked out the promotions upto and inclusive of Class II posts by 14th February, 1988.
Against the said seniority list, therefore, some of the Traffic Apprentices filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.
360 of 1988 and 936 of 1989 respectively, challenging the new seniority list, and also on the ground that they were number parties to the earlier proceedings.
220 of 1972 decided on July 30, 1975.
246 of 1985.
Anil Dev Singh, C.V.S. Rao, T.C. Sharma and B.K Pershad for the Appellant.
Hence, they wanted their seniority list as Traffic Apprentices to be recast according to quota and rota rule, and the seniority list which was prepared allegedly companytrary to the said rule, quashed.
246 of 1985 Writ Petition No.
246 of 1985.
The grievance of the petitioners in TA No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Leave granted.
The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Chadha and others in that application .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Two additional facts need be stated.
948 of 1976 was against the senior ity list of 1976 and since that seniority list was supersed ed by 1983 list which the Tribunal observed was in pursuance of the High Courts directions, numberhing survived in the grievance of the applicants there viz.,
Against this decision the Railways preferred a special leave petition which was dismissed.
Thereafter, the Railways prepared a fresh seniority list in 1976.
In the second panel, KN Saxena stands selected.
This quota had to be carried forward in case of shortfall in any particular year, and the remaining 75 per cent of the vacancies were earmarked for promotion to other departmental officials who were called rankers.
It appears that this seniority list took care of the grievances only of the employees who were parties to the petition.
Thereafter, on the basis of orders passed by the Tribunal on 9.12.1987, the Traffic Apprentices who became eligible for promotion in the first batch after revision of seniority were companysidered by a Review Departmen tal Promotion Committee and interpolated in.
Subodh Markandeya, W.A. Nomani, G. Seshagiri Rao, A.K. Raina, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, G.D. Gupta and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents.
However, the applicants, Chadha and others in TA No.
The appeal is filed by the General Manager, Northern Railways against the decision dated 14th September, 1988 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
2013 of 1990.
948 of 1976 challenging the seniority.
17 of 1987 in T. 246 of 1985.
Hence, M s. P. Chowdhary and K.N. Saxena, officers belonging to the Commercial Department approached the Tribunal by their applications Nos.
17 of 1987 before the Tribunal making a grievance that full effect had number been given to the judgment dated June 25, 1986 of the Tribunal in TA No.
