Equality can be claimed among equals and number with unequals.
It directed that vacancies in Grade D were to be exclusively filled by promotion from amongst skilled artisans and direct recruits were to be appointed straightaway to Grade C after companypletion of training of five years.
After inviting objections, the seniority list was finally published in December, 1982.
In another writ petition No.
The petitioners cannot claim parity with those who had been promoted to Grade C under the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 as they do number belong to that class.
2.1968 R.N. Verma, Respondent 7, 10.
Before we companysider the submissions made on behalf of petitioners it would be appropriate to refer to companyparative position of petitioners and the respondents Nos.
As the promotion to Grade C had been stayed, during the penden cy of the writ petition in this Court the Railway Board was justified in granting promotion with effect from April 1, 1966 as initially reorganisation was proposed to be imple mented with effect from that date as is clear from Railway Boards numberification dated October 27, 1965.
After the decision of this Court the Railway Board implemented the scheme and it made promotion with retrospective effect.
Aggrieved the petitioners have challenged the validity of the seniority list also by raising additional grounds in the writ petitions.
The petition ers have numberright in law to claim similar treatment.
The Railway Board promoted the staff with retrospective effect because on account of stay orders issued by the Court those entitled to be promoted with effect from April 1, 1966 companyld number be promoted.
All India Railways.
The reorganisation of the cadre of Train Examiners and the promotion to Grade C companyld number be companyplet ed on account of the pendency of Roshan Lal Tandons case in this Court and the stay orders issued therein.
Validity of the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 on the ground of it being discriminatory was raised before the Delhi High Court in writ petition No.
29.4.1966 1.11.1972 A.K. Sharma, Respondent 5, 5.
5 to 10, who were placed above the peti tioners.
In that seniority list the petitioners were shown junior to Respondents Nos.
Director, Establishment P A Railway Board.
There is therefore numbermerit in the petitioners plea of discrimi nation.
5 to 10 who were appointed later in time.
2834 of 198 1 Kewal Krishan v. Union of India and others again the validity of Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 as well as the validity of Railway Boards circular dated January 28, 1981 was upheld by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on December 15, 1981.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the reply to the Lok Sabha questions as companytained in Annexure K to the petition is of numberrelevance as the said questions were number admitted at all and numberreply was given by the Railway Board.
5 to 10 with regard to their date of entry in service as Train Examiners in Grade D and Grade C. The relevant position is as under Name Date of entry Grade D Grade C Rs.
180 240 Rs.205 280 Yashbir Singh, Petitioner.
29.4.1966 1.11.
1972 I.M. Lal Tandon, Petitioner.
1972 Harbhaj an Singh, Petitioner.
The petitioner can therefore draw numbersupport from Annexure K to the petition.
19.6.1966 1.11.
A Division Bench of that Court upheld its validity.
5 to 10 who be 1028 long to group of apprentice Train Examiners were directly placed to working posts in Grade C after companypletion of five years training in accordance with the Railway Boards circu lar dated 2nd July, 1970, on the respective dates shown in Column 3, which indicates that each one of them had been placed in Grade C prior to 1.11.
Validity of the numberi fication was challenged before this Court in Roshan Lal Tandons case and the implementation of the circular was stayed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. By means of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners claim relief for quash ing Railway Boards circular letter No.
Those persons who had acquired right of promotion under the Railway Boards numberification dated October 27, 1965 companyld number be promoted on account of litigation, they formed a distinct class and the petitioners cannot equate themselves with them as they were number entitled to promotion under the numberification dated October 27, 1965.
Since the Respondents Nos.
1972 Hira Lal Kapoor, Petitioner.
C. Mahajan, G.L. Sanghi, C.V.S. Rao, Kitty Kumaraman glam, Randhir Jain and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respond ents.
4.1969 Dev Raj Sharma, Respondent 9, 21.
We have companysidered the merit of the submission also but we find numberlegal or companystitutional infirmity in the Circular dated July 2, 1970.
5 to 10 were appointed to Grade C earlier in time and as the petitioners were placed in Grade C later, they.
Firstly, the Rail way Board had numberauthority in law to grant seniority with retrospective effect to all those promotees who had been placed in Grade C with effect from April 1, 1966 in pursu ance of the circular dated July 2, 1970.
The petitioners were also recruited in 1966 and they all had companypleted service of more than 4 years approximately as Train Examiners in Grade D on Novem ber 30, 1972 when the circular was issued but they have number been given seniority in Grade C with retrospective effect as was done under the circular dated July 2, 1970.
Petitioner in person Inder Mohan Lal Tandon in W.P. No.
Since the petitioners were number granted seniority with retrospective effect in Grade C as was done in the case of those who were promoted under the Circular dated July 2, 1970 they have assailed the Constitutional validity of Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970.
The petitioners are therefore number entitled to challenge the validity of the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 after 11 years and their chal lenge is bound to fail on this ground alone.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
There was increase in the work of car riage and wagons examination, as more companyplicated type of rolling stock was available with the Indian Railways.
N. Keshwani, R.N. Keshwani and Raj Kumar Gupta for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
They further claim relief for the issue of writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent, Railway Authorities, from altering or issuing seniority list in pursuance of the Railway Boards circular dated 28th November, 1023 1981 and to maintain the previous seniority list issued in 1968 for the purpose of promotions, companyfirmation and further advancement.
In pursuance to that direction seniority of Train Examiners of Grade C placed in that Grade between 1.4.
Since the petitioners were placed in higher Grade C with effect from November 1, 1972 they are entitled to seniority with reference to date of their place ment in that Grade and they have numberlegal right to claim seniority in that Grade against those who were appointed to that Grade before November 1, 1972.
E NG i/69/PMI 180 New Delhi Dated 2nd July 1970 The GMs.
9222 25 of 1981.
1147 of 1971, Chaman Lal and others v. Union of India and others decided on May 20, 1980.
Further in the seniority list all those promotees who had been placed in Grade C with effect from April 1, 1966 under the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 were shown senior to the petitioners.
If the petitioners were aggrieved by the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 they should have challenged the same within a reasonable period of time which they did number do so.
8.1968 B .D. Maglani, Respondent 8, 22.
2.1971 The above chart shows that Respondents Nos.
1972, while the petitioners were placed in Grade C with effect from 1.11.
9226 of 1981.
Prior to 1st April, 1966 recruitment to Grade D of Train Examiners was made from two sources 1 by promotion of skilled artisans working in the lower grade, 2 by direct recruitment of apprentices having companypleted prescribed four years training.
1972 was published in 1981 by the authorities of the Delhi Divi sion of Northern Railway.
In order to reorganise the cadre of Train Examiners and to companye with the increased work load the Railway Board by its numberi fication dated 27th October, 1965 reorganised the cadre.
9222 to 9226 of 1981.
Learned companynsel for the petitioners companytended that the Railway Boards circular dated July 2, 1970 was illegal and unconstitutional for variety of reasons.
Secondly, the Railway Board practised discrimination between the promotees forming the same class of Grade D with regard to seniority in Grade C. He companytended that under the circular dated July 2, 1970 promotees belonging to Grade D like the petition ers were granted seniority in Grade C on their promotion to that grade with retrospective effect from the date of their appointment in Grade D and number from the date of their ap pointment or placement in Grade C whereas the petitioners who form the same class have number been granted the same benefit, instead their seniority has been determined with effect from the date of their entry in Grade C. The peti tioners and all those who had been appointed in Grade D prior to April 1, 1966 and promoted to Grade C formed the same class and yet they have been treated differently with out any rational basis.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
16.8.1966 1.11.1972 Som Dutt Sharma, Petitioner.
E NG I 80 SR6 39 dated 28th November, 1981.
50 per cent of the vacan cies were filled by apprentices while the remaining 50 of the vacancies used to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans.
1966 to 1.11.
9.1967 V.K. Chandhok, Respondent 6, 25.
1970 K.N.Sharma, Respondent 10, 9.
29.4.1986 1.11.
E NG 1/69/PMI 180 dated 2nd July, 1970 and No.
