# KUTTIYAPP AN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 216
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-08-26
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kuttiyapp-an-v-union-of-india-and-ors-14505
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service Law :
Railway Establishment Mallual-Rules 302, 306-lllter-se seni01ity beC tween regularly promoted in-service candidates alld those selected by direct
recrnitment-Held, For direct recruits date of first enfly and joining the post
is the c1iteri<r-F or promotees it would be the date Oil which they start working
ill the post after completion of the process-Oiteiia under Rule 306 not
applicable ill detennining illter-se se11io1ity between promotees alld direct
recrnits.
D
E
F

## Text

A
KUTTIYAPP AN
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
AUGUST 26, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Railway Establishment Mallual-Rules 302, 306-lllter-se seni01ity beC tween regularly promoted in-service candidates alld those selected by direct
recrnitment-Held, For direct recruits date of first enfly and joining the post
is the c1iteri<r-F or promotees it would be the date Oil which they start working
ill the post after completion of the process-Oiteiia under Rule 306 not
applicable ill detennining illter-se se11io1ity between promotees alld direct
recrnits.
D
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 18584 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.96 of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Madras in O.A. No. 1470 of 1993.
S. Muralidhar for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
This SLP has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on January 30, 1996 in QA No. 1470/93.
The admitted position is that th1: petitioner along with others came to be
selected by internal selection for promotion under 25% quota. Undoubtedly, the process of selection was started in 1988 but the incumbents actually
G joined the promotional posts in October 1990. Though the process of
selection for direct recruits under 25% quota reserved for the candidates
from open market was started in 1989, they came to join the posts after
completion of the selection process earlier to the petitioner & others in
August 1990. The petitioners claimed seniority over them. The Tribunal
H has rejected their claim. Thus, this SLP.
216
r
(
c
KUIBYAPPAN.v. U.O.L
217
It is contended for the petitioners, relying upon Rule 302 read with A
Rule 306 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual that since the
process of selection had been made earlier to the direct recruits, the
petitioner is entitled to seniority over the direct recruits since they were
selected earlier to the respondents and, therefore, they should be made
seniors to the direct recruits. We find no force in the contention. Rule 302 B
reads as under :
"302. Seniority in initial recruitment Grades - Unless specifically
stated otherwise, the seniority among the incumbents of a post in
a grade is governed by the date of appointment to the grade. The
grant of pay higher than the initial pay should not, as a rule, confer C
on a Railway servant seniority above those who are already appointed against regular posts. In categories of post partially filled
by direct recruitment and partially by promotion, the criterion for
determination of seniority should be the date of regular promotion
after due process in the case of promotees and the date of joining D
the working post after due process in the case of direct recruit
result subject to maintenance of inter-se seniority of promotees
and direct recruits among themselves. When the dates of entry into
a grade of promoted railway servants and direct recruits are the
same they should be put in alternate positions, the promotees being
senior to. the direct recruits, maintaining i11ter-se seniority of each E
group."
Note - In case the training period of a direct recruit is curtailed
in the exigencies of service, the date of joining the working post
in case of such a direct recruit shall be the date we would have
normally come to a working post after completion of the prescribed
period of training.
(No. E (NG) 1-78-SR-6-42 dt. 7.4.1982 ACS 132)
Similarly, Rule 306 reads as under :
"306. Candidates selected for appointment at an earlier selection
shall be senior to those selected later irrespective of the dates of
posting, except in the case covered by para 305."
F
G
A reading of these Rules would clearly indicate that the process of H
A
B
c
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
selection bears no relevance. What is material in determination of the
inter-se seniority between regularly promoted in-service candidates and
those selected by direct recruitment during the process of selection is that
in the case of the former the seniority starts from date on which they joined
the working post after completion of the process while in the case of direct
recruits their inter se seniority would start from the date of their entry into
the grade. Therefore, as regards the direct recruits, the date of first entry
and joining the post is the criteria, in the case of the promotees it would
be the date on which they start working in the post after completion of the
process. It is not in dispute that training is one of the conditions for
completion of the process. Unless the training is completed, they cannot
work on regular basis in the promotional post.
' As regards Rule 306, it regulates in an area where the selected '
candidates were appointed earlier to the candidates who subsequently
came to be selected and the earlier candidates become senior to the
subsequent selectees irrespective of the date of posting. That criteria is
D inapplicable in determining the inter se seniority between the promotees
and the direct recruits. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting the
claim. It does not, therefore, warrant interference.
The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
E
G.N.
Petition dismissed.