# [1977] 1 S.C.R. 785

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 785
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-12
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1977-1-s-c-r-785-6970
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Indian Railway fa·tablishment Code-Para 157-Whether tlit paragrapil
empowers the Rail1ray Board to make mies for tlie gazetted Railway servants-Constmction of para I 57.
A
B
(ii) 1'romotions-Riuht to pro11101ion-Whet/1er promotion of class Ill
employec.1· to class II is govemed by "Advance Correction
Slip
No.
70"
introducing w.e.f. March 11, 1973, new mies 324 to 328 and substituting a
C
new rnle iOl in Chapter Ill of the Indian Railway Establisllmenl ManualScope and applicability of Rules 301 and 328(2), (4) Gll<l (5).
(iii) Indian Railway Esrablishment Mwwal-Whether Rule
328(2) 11roridi11g for the invalidity of promotions made in the Diesel Locomotire Works
from August 1, 1961 to March 11, 1973 casts an obligation on the Railway
JJonrd to recall all promofi'ons and to form a fresh panel-Meaning of "promotion made in the Diesel Locomotive Works in Rule 328(2) and promotion
D
JO the hi1d1cr i:rades in Rule 328(4)."
Chapter II of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual deals with "Rules
governing the provision of subordinate staff and Section A thereof deals with
"promotion to class U posts." The Railway Board
by virtue of its
power
Yested by para 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, inlrlXiuced
w.e.f. March I I, 1973, an "Advance Correction Slip No. 70" substituting
a new rule 301 and introducing new rules 324 to 328.
Cha,pter HI deals
with the mies regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants and the
E
·new rnle 328(2) provided that selections and promotions made in the Diesel
Locomotive Works from August 1, 1961 to March 11, 1973 shall not be
valid.
The appellant. a member of the class 111 service serving with th~ Western
Ra·ilway as a chargeman was transferred to the Diesel Locomotive Works
in 1963 and was given the benefits of deemed dates of transfer as provided
for in Rule 326(2). The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad
High Court praying for a writ of mandamus on the strength of the "Advance
F
Correction Slip
No. 70" praying for a direction to the respondent to
hold
selections to class II service.
The application was rejected holding that the
rules contained in Slip No. 70 did not govern the promotion of class Jll employees to class JJ.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the court,
HELD: Though the Railway Board has the power to make rules governing both gazetted and non-gazetted Railwa,y servants, the rules expressed to
be made under paragraph 157 cannot, in the very nature of things, be intended to apply to gazetted Railway servants
or to govern the promotion
of non-gazetted Railway servants to gazetted posts. If the
Railway
Board
has the power to make rules in regard to both gazetted and non-gazetted
Railway servants, the signification of a limited source
of
power
cannot
whitle down the effective exercise of that power if the· rules can reasonably
he construed to cover both the gazetted and non-gazetted
categories. [787 H,
788 A-BJ
(2) None of the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 govern the promotion
of a class III employee to a class II post. The amendments were made to
Chapter Ill dealing with rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway
servants.
Jt is in regard to that class of Railway servants that the Railway
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
is (j
SUP!tEME COURT REPORTS
( 1977 j 1 S.C.R.
Hoa'.d m:ide. _new provisi.ons.
The provisions contained in Ch;.;·pter Ill includmg provisions newly mtroduccd by Shp No. 70, arc very clearly desioncd
to govern the seniority and promotions of non-gazetted servants within° the
non-gazetted categories of posts.
Chapter H Section A of the Manual
in
terms prescribes rules governing the promotion or subordinate staff to class
J1 post. In view of the fact ~hat the Railway Board has framed SCWti specific rules in Chapter II for the promotion of class Ill staff to class Il post,
the contention that the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 would also govern
the same subject-mater cannot be accepted.
In the instant case, since the
appellant is working as a non-ga

## Text

I
785
S. K. CHANDAN
\I.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
October 12, 1976
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
Indian Railway fa·tablishment Code-Para 157-Whether tlit paragrapil
empowers the Rail1ray Board to make mies for tlie gazetted Railway servants-Constmction of para I 57.
A
B
(ii) 1'romotions-Riuht to pro11101ion-Whet/1er promotion of class Ill
employec.1· to class II is govemed by "Advance Correction
Slip
No.
70"
introducing w.e.f. March 11, 1973, new mies 324 to 328 and substituting a
C
new rnle iOl in Chapter Ill of the Indian Railway Establisllmenl ManualScope and applicability of Rules 301 and 328(2), (4) Gll<l (5).
(iii) Indian Railway Esrablishment Mwwal-Whether Rule
328(2) 11roridi11g for the invalidity of promotions made in the Diesel Locomotire Works
from August 1, 1961 to March 11, 1973 casts an obligation on the Railway
JJonrd to recall all promofi'ons and to form a fresh panel-Meaning of "promotion made in the Diesel Locomotive Works in Rule 328(2) and promotion
D
JO the hi1d1cr i:rades in Rule 328(4)."
Chapter II of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual deals with "Rules
governing the provision of subordinate staff and Section A thereof deals with
"promotion to class U posts." The Railway Board
by virtue of its
power
Yested by para 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, inlrlXiuced
w.e.f. March I I, 1973, an "Advance Correction Slip No. 70" substituting
a new rule 301 and introducing new rules 324 to 328.
Cha,pter HI deals
with the mies regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway servants and the
E
·new rnle 328(2) provided that selections and promotions made in the Diesel
Locomotive Works from August 1, 1961 to March 11, 1973 shall not be
valid.
The appellant. a member of the class 111 service serving with th~ Western
Ra·ilway as a chargeman was transferred to the Diesel Locomotive Works
in 1963 and was given the benefits of deemed dates of transfer as provided
for in Rule 326(2). The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad
High Court praying for a writ of mandamus on the strength of the "Advance
F
Correction Slip
No. 70" praying for a direction to the respondent to
hold
selections to class II service.
The application was rejected holding that the
rules contained in Slip No. 70 did not govern the promotion of class Jll employees to class JJ.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the court,
HELD: Though the Railway Board has the power to make rules governing both gazetted and non-gazetted Railwa,y servants, the rules expressed to
be made under paragraph 157 cannot, in the very nature of things, be intended to apply to gazetted Railway servants
or to govern the promotion
of non-gazetted Railway servants to gazetted posts. If the
Railway
Board
has the power to make rules in regard to both gazetted and non-gazetted
Railway servants, the signification of a limited source
of
power
cannot
whitle down the effective exercise of that power if the· rules can reasonably
he construed to cover both the gazetted and non-gazetted
categories. [787 H,
788 A-BJ
(2) None of the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 govern the promotion
of a class III employee to a class II post. The amendments were made to
Chapter Ill dealing with rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted Railway
servants.
Jt is in regard to that class of Railway servants that the Railway
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
is (j
SUP!tEME COURT REPORTS
( 1977 j 1 S.C.R.
Hoa'.d m:ide. _new provisi.ons.
The provisions contained in Ch;.;·pter Ill includmg provisions newly mtroduccd by Shp No. 70, arc very clearly desioncd
to govern the seniority and promotions of non-gazetted servants within° the
non-gazetted categories of posts.
Chapter H Section A of the Manual
in
terms prescribes rules governing the promotion or subordinate staff to class
J1 post. In view of the fact ~hat the Railway Board has framed SCWti specific rules in Chapter II for the promotion of class Ill staff to class Il post,
the contention that the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 would also govern
the same subject-mater cannot be accepted.
In the instant case, since the
appellant is working as a non-ga·zettcd employee in class 111, his promotion
lo a gazetted post in class II would be governed by Chapter II, Section A and
not by Chapter JlI of the Railway Eslablishmcnt Manual. [7R8 l'--H, 7b9 Al
(3) The words "promotions made in the Oicscl
Locomoti1·e
Works"
which occur in Rule 328 (2) must be construed as mc<;·ning "promotions
made in the Diesel Locomotive Works from one category of no1'-gazettcd
post to another category of non-gazetted post."
The words "promotion to
the higher grades" occtming in para 328( 4) mean promotion to a class I.I
post.
The words promotion to the higher grndes must. in the c(jllcxt mean
promotion to any of the higher grades in the non-ga·zetted category.
The
contention that Rule 328(1) casts an obligation on the Railway Board tu
recall all promotibns made from amongst class !fl servants to cla" J[ posts
from August I, 1961 to March 1 l. 1973 is misplaced. i7S9 fl--CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRTSDJCTION: Civil Appeal No. 62 l of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
12.1.1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 7183 of 1975.
Appellant. in person.
V. P. Raman, Addi. Sol. Genl. and Girish Chandra, for respondent No. 1.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Lalji Sin/w and Miss Rani A mm, for rcspo11clent No. 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Cl1ANDRACHUD, J.-Rcspondent I, the Union of India, estal:·lishcd
the Locomotive Component Works at Varanasi in 1956 for m.anufacturing component parts of locomotives.
That manufactory merged
in 1961 with the Diesel Locomotive Works.
The appellant, S. K.
Chandan, who was serving with the Westeren Railway as a Chargeman
was transferred in 1963 to the Diesel Locomotive Works in the grade
o[ Rs. 375-475 whieh he was holding at the time of his transfer as
a member of the Class III service.
The question which arises in this
appeal concerns the claim of the appellant to be promoted to Class
I [ service.
Jn 1975 the appellant filed the present writ petition in th~ Allahabad High Court asking for the writs of Certiorari and !.1'amla11111s. We
arc now concerned with the grant of the latter writ only by which the
appellant prayed, inter alia, that respondent 1 be directed to hold selections to Class II service in accordance with the "Advance Correction
Slip 70."
This, particular prayer was rejected by the High Court by
.
I
\
s. K. CllANDAN v. UNION OF INDIA (C!umdrachud, .!.)
787
its judgment dated January 12, 1976 o_n the view that rules contained
in S.lip 70 did not govern the promot1_on of .C:lass III employees to
Class II.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid dec1s1011 the appe~lant has .
filed this appeal by special leave of this Court.
The leave 1s restricted to the question whether the promotion of Class I U cm ployccs
to
ChlSS Jl is governed by Slip 70.
Paragraph l 05 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Vol. l)
divides railway services into two categories gazetted and _non-gazetted.
Services in Classes I and 11 are gazetted whereas those m Classes 111
and IV and the services of the Workshop Staff arc designated as nongazette~.
Paragraph 15 7, of the Code confers on the Railway Boa~d
"'full powers to make rules of general applicatio111 to 11011-gaze_tte<l ratlway servants under their control."
Acting in pursuance o[ t111s pmver,
the Rail'1ay Board· has framed rules which are to be found in th<;
''Indian Railway Establishment Manual."
Chapter [ of those r~les
deals with questions relating to recruitment, training, confirmat1011
and re-employment.
Chapter II which is headed "Rules governing
the promotion of subordinate staff" consists of two sections, 'A' and
'B'.
Section 'A' deals with "Promotion to Class II posts" while section 'B' contains "Rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff.
Chapter III is headed "Rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants."
Originally, Chapter III contained rules 301 to 323.
The Advance
Correction Slip No. 70, also issued by the Railway Board in exercise
of its powers under Paragraph 157 of the Railway Establishment Code,
substituted a new rule 301 for the existing rule and it introduced five
new rules in Chapter Ill, namely rules 324 to 328.
The contention
of the appellant which requires examination in this appeal is that his
promotion to Class U is governed by the rules introduced by Slip No.
70 which came into force on March 1 J, 1973.
The appellant, who argued his own case before us with quite some
industry and plausibility, did not dispute that rules 324, 323,
327.
328(1) and 328(3) have no application to this case.
Rule 326(2)
which prescribes deemed dates of transfers would apply but has been
concededly complied with, the appellant having no grievance in regard to the fixation of the deemed date of his transfer to
the Diesel
Locomotive Works.
Keeping these provisions apart, the question
boils down to the applicability of rules 301 and 328 (2), ( 4) and ( 5).
The appellant's argument that the rules introduced by Advance
Correction Slip 70 govern his right to promotion to Class U is plainly
misconceived.
In the first place, the rules introduced by Slip No. 70
were made by the Railway Board in exercise o( its powers under Paragr;:iph J 57 of the Railway Establishment Code which empowers
it
c
])
E
F
G
to make rules of general application to "Non-gazetted railway servants"
H
under its control.
Though the Railway Board has the power to make
rules governing both gazetted and non-gazetted railway servants, the
rules expressed to be made under Paragraph 157 cannot in the very
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[l977] 1 S.C.R.
nature of things be intended to apply to gazetted railway servants or
to govern the promotion of non-gazetted railway servants to gazetted
posts.
But this is a small point because if the Railway Board has
th~ power to make rules in regard to both gazetted and non-gazetted
rail.way servants, the signification of a limited source of power cannot
whittle down the effective exercise of that power, if the rules can
rcason~bly be construed to cover both the gazetted and llOn-gazettcd
catcgones.
The true reason why it is impossible to accept the appellant's contention that his promotion to Class JI is governed by the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 is that Chapter II, section A,
of the • Indian
Railway Establishment Manual in terms prescribes rules go\'erning
the promotion of subordinate staff to Class Il posts.
T~ headi;,,
of Chapter II is : "Rules governing the promotion of
subordinate
staff" and section A of that Chapter bears the sub-heading "Promotion
to Class Il posts." Rule 201 which is the first of the Rules occurring
in section A of Chapt~r II, provides :-
·
"The following provisions shall apply in respect of promotion of non-gazetted class Ill staff employed on Indian
Railways or other Railway administrations to class If posts
other than those in Railway Protection Force organization."
Rule 202 prescribes conditions of eligibility, rule 203 deals with
the size of panels of selection, rule 204 with the constitution of the
selection boards, rule 205 with the procedure to be adopted by selection boards and mies 206 and 207 with the currency and formation
of panels.
These seven mies constitute a Code of rules governing
!he promotion of the non-gazetted Class Ill staff to Class II posts,
other than those in the Railway Protection Force.
In view of the
fact that the Railway Board has framed these specific rules for the
promotion of Class III staff to Class JI posts, it seems to us difficult
to accept that the rules introduced by Slip No. 70 would also govern
!he same subject matter.
The Advance Correction Slip No. 70 introduced amendments
to
Chapter III and not to Chapter II of the Manual.
Chapter ll 1
deals with rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants
and it is in regard to that class of railway servants that the Railway
Board made new provisions through Slip No, 70.
The provisions
contained in Chapter III, including the provisions newly introduced
by Slip No. 70, are very clearly designed to govern the seniority
and promotion of non-gazetted servants within the non-gazetted categories of posts,
The non-gazetted railway service consists of Class
111 and IV employees and of the Workshop staff.
Within each of
these three classes there may be different grades of railway servants
and the rules in Chapter Ill arc intended to govern the inter se
seniority and the promotion of a railway employee from one category
of non-gazetted post to another category of a non-gazetted post. The
......
\
__..
I
s. K. CHANDAN v. UNION OF lNDIA (Chandruchud, .f.)
789
rules in Chapter III cannot therefore govern the prornotion o(. n01'.-
gazetted railway servants to gazetted posts.
Since. the apl?ellant 1s
working as a non-gazetted employee in Class III, his promotion to . a
gazetted post in Class II would be governed by Chapter ll, sectt0n _A,
and not by Chapter III of the Railway Establishment Manual. _
Rule 301 of Chapter III, as introduced by Slip 70, provides . in
terms that the rules contained in the particular Chapter lay down
general principles that may be followed for determining the seniority
of. non-gazetted railway servants and that rules 324 to 328
of that
Chapter shall apply for the purpose of deten~ining the sei~iority and
promoti<>n of non-gazetted employees of the Diesel Locom?l1ve Wo!ks.
The appellant relied very strongly on rule 328 (2) wluch provides
that selections and promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive Works
from 1-891961 to the date on which Slip No. 70 came into
force:,
namely March I 1, 1973, shall not be valid.
He urges tlmt this provision casts an obligation on the Railway Board to recall all promotions
made from amongst Class III servants to Class P'. posts from August I -
1961 to March 11, 1973 and that therefore those who are already
promoted to gazetted posts ought to be demoted and a fresh
panel
must be formed for selection to Class II posts from amongst employees
working in Class III posts.
The infirmity of this argument is
that
Chapter HI applies only to non-gazetted servants and to their inter
se promotion and therefore the word!> "promotions made in the Diesel
Locomotive Works" which occur in rule 328(2) must be construed
as meaning " promotions made in the Diesel Locomotive Works from
one category of non-gazetted post to another category of non-gazetted
post".
The same answer would effectively meet the contention of
the appellant that the words "promotion to the higher grades" occurring in paragraph 328 ( 4) mean promotion to a Class II post.
The
words "promotion to the higher grades" must in the context mean
promotion to any of the higher grades in the non-gazetted categ0ry.
Rule 123 (3) of Chapter I, Section B, Railway Establishment Manual,
defines "grades" as sub-divisions of a class, each bearing a different
scale of pay.
If the grievance of the appellant who holds a non-gazetted post in
Class III, at all is or can be that he has not been promoted to Class II,
he must show that the railway administration has violated some provision contained in Chapter II, section A, of the Railway F.stablishment Manual. It is useless and irrelevant for him to show that the
provisions of Chapter III introduced by
Advance Correction Slip
No. 70 have not been complied with by the administration. None of
the rules introduced by that slip governs the promotion of a Class III
employee to a Class II post.
The High Court was accordingly ri~t in refusing to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the railway administration to apply the prov_isions
of Chapter III in the matter of the appellant's promotion to a Class II
post.
·
.,. -• ·
The appellant has filed a civil miscellaneous petition (7990 of
1976) complaining of adverse entries in his Service record and of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPJ!.1'.M'E COU!tT Jtl'.PORTS
[1977] I S.C.R.
A
fact that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion. These
very grievances were made by him in the High Court but he lost on
those points.
While granting special leave to
appeal.
this Court
refused to consider the correctness of the High Court's findings on
those issues. The leave being restricted to the question as regards the
application of rnlcs introduced by Advance Correction Slip No. 70 ..
the appellant cannot be permitted to raise questions which must
be
B
taken as finally decided under the judgment of the High Court.
For these reasons the appeal fails but there will be no order as to
costs.
•
S. R.
Appeal dismissed.
•