# SHITLA SAHAI SRIVASTAVA v. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 61
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-14
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 268 of 1963
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, V. Ramaswami, P. Satyanarayana Raju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shitla-sahai-srivastava-v-general-manager-north-eastern-railway-3631
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Service-Select11on post-Inclusion of name in panel and later
deletion-When amounts to reduction in rank.
Selection to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector
from
that of
Travelling Ticket Examiner is made by a Selection Board in accordance
with the Promotion and Selection Rules (Non-Gazetted) framed under
the Indian Railway Establishment Code,.
Every year, the
number of
vacancies that are likely to occur during the year is assessed and in accordance with r. 8(7), eligible staff upto 4 times the number of anticipated
vacancies are called up for
written and viva voce tests. Thereafter, the
Board prepares a panel and promotions are made from the panel.
In 1959, there were 8 vacancies, in the ex-Muzaffarpur region of the
North Eastern Railway, which were to be filled up immediately and in
addition a panel of 6 was required to be drawn up.
But, due to an
incorrect assessment, 92 persons of whom the appellant was one, were
called up for examination instead of 56. As a result of the tests a panel
of 14 persons was prepared and the appellant was given the 12th rank.
The final list was then prepared and the appellant was given the
13th
rank; but a note was appended that the selection of candidates 9 to 14
was provisional.
Later, under orders of the.
General
Manager,
who
was the prescribed authority, the names of candidates 9 to 14 were. deleted
from the panel.
The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226, but the High Court dismissed it.
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the
deletion amounted to a reduction in rank and that the order was bad in
law, because, the appellant was not given an opportunity before his name
was deleted.
HELD : If a civil servant has a right to a particular rank, then the
very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then
lose the emoluments· and privileges of that rank.
If, however, he has no
right fJo the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank
to his substantive. lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment.
Since,
in the panel prepared, the word "provisional"
was
specifically
noted
against the name of the appellant, it shows that he did not acquire a.
right tu the post. The appellant could not complain of any infraction of
the guarantee given by the Constitution to iovernment servants and no
penal consequences have been visited on him. Therefore the deletion of
his name from the panel did not attract the provisions of ·Art.
311.
[65 C-E.. 67 E]
H
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828,
followed.
Din.eshwar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent Eastern Railway, A.I.R.
1960 Cal. 209, overruled.
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966) 3 S.C.R.

## Text

•
, •
'
•
,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SHITLA SAHAI SRIVASTAVA
v.
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
December 14, 1965
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI
AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.)
Civil Service-Select11on post-Inclusion of name in panel and later
deletion-When amounts to reduction in rank.
Selection to the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector
from
that of
Travelling Ticket Examiner is made by a Selection Board in accordance
with the Promotion and Selection Rules (Non-Gazetted) framed under
the Indian Railway Establishment Code,.
Every year, the
number of
vacancies that are likely to occur during the year is assessed and in accordance with r. 8(7), eligible staff upto 4 times the number of anticipated
vacancies are called up for
written and viva voce tests. Thereafter, the
Board prepares a panel and promotions are made from the panel.
In 1959, there were 8 vacancies, in the ex-Muzaffarpur region of the
North Eastern Railway, which were to be filled up immediately and in
addition a panel of 6 was required to be drawn up.
But, due to an
incorrect assessment, 92 persons of whom the appellant was one, were
called up for examination instead of 56. As a result of the tests a panel
of 14 persons was prepared and the appellant was given the 12th rank.
The final list was then prepared and the appellant was given the
13th
rank; but a note was appended that the selection of candidates 9 to 14
was provisional.
Later, under orders of the.
General
Manager,
who
was the prescribed authority, the names of candidates 9 to 14 were. deleted
from the panel.
The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226, but the High Court dismissed it.
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the
deletion amounted to a reduction in rank and that the order was bad in
law, because, the appellant was not given an opportunity before his name
was deleted.
HELD : If a civil servant has a right to a particular rank, then the
very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then
lose the emoluments· and privileges of that rank.
If, however, he has no
right fJo the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank
to his substantive. lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment.
Since,
in the panel prepared, the word "provisional"
was
specifically
noted
against the name of the appellant, it shows that he did not acquire a.
right tu the post. The appellant could not complain of any infraction of
the guarantee given by the Constitution to iovernment servants and no
penal consequences have been visited on him. Therefore the deletion of
his name from the panel did not attract the provisions of ·Art.
311.
[65 C-E.. 67 E]
H
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828,
followed.
Din.eshwar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent Eastern Railway, A.I.R.
1960 Cal. 209, overruled.
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966) 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 766 of
A
1964.
Appeal by special leave (rom the judgment and order, dated
September 19, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Special
Appeal No. 268 of 1963.
S. P. Sinha and Shaukat Husain, foe the appellant.
Nire11 De, Additional Solicitor-General, K. C. Chawla and
R. H. Dhebar, foe the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Satyanarayana Raju, J.
This appeal, by special leave, is
C
apinst the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court which affirmed the judgment of a Single Judge of that
Court. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be shortly stated
aa follows.
The appellant had been in the service of North Eastern Railway holding the substantive post of Travelling Ticket Examiner.
D
The post of Travelling Ticket Inspector, which is the next higher
post. is a selection post. Selection is made by a Selection Board
in accordance with the Promotion and Selection Rules (NonGazctted) framed under para 158 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I (hereinafter referred to as the rules).
Every year, an assessment of the number of vacancies that are
E
likely to occur during that year is made. The Chief Commercial
Superintendent is the appointing authority for the posts of Ticket
Inspectors. In accordance with r. 8(7), eligible staff, up to four
times the number of anticipated vacancies, shall be called up for
written and viva voce test~.
After the examination and the
interview, the Board prepares a panel and promotions are made
F
from the said panel.
In the year 1959, a Selection Board for preparing a panel for
the ex-Muzaffarpur region was constituted.
There were, during
that year, eight existing vacancies which were to be filled up
immediately.
In addition, a panel of six was required to be G
drawn up.
It was also expected that there would be nine more
vacancies on account of upgrading of posts but this did not
actually materialise.
But, due to an incorrect assessment of the
anticipated number of vacancies, 92 persons were called up for
examination, whereas 56 persons should have been called up for
written and viva voce tests.
H
There was a written examination on February 22, 1959 and
Ma.rch 31, 1959, and thereafter the Selection Board interviewed
• •
' •
'
•
•
' •
,
•
•
'
..
SRIVASTAVA 11. N. E. llLY. (Raju,/.)
63
A the candidates.
As a result of the examination and the viva vou
test, the Selection Board prepared a panel of fourteen persons and
the appellant was given the twelfth rank in the panel. He was
posted as officiating Travelling Ticket Inspector on or about
Jilly 28, 1960.
The final list of persons brought on the panel
was published in the Railway Gazette on January 1, 1961 and the
B
appellant was shown at serial no. 13 in that panel. But a note
was appended to the notification stating that the selection of the
appellant and five others was provisional.
By a letter, dated September 29, 1961, the Chief Commercial
Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, under the
C orders of the General Manager, the prescribed authority, deleted
the name of the appellant and five others who were shown at
serial numbers 9 to 14 in the panel.
On November 28, 1961, the appellant filed a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari,
D impugning the validity of the order dated September 29, 1961
in and by which his name had been removed from the panel. He
contended that the deletion of his name from the panel indefinitely postponed his right of promotion and therefore amounted
to a reduction in rank.
i:
The respondents contested the petition.
They averred that
the name of the appellant was deleted from the panel in accordance with rules, that he had no subsisting right to the post merely
by reason of the fact that his name was included in the panel.
that the appellant and five other persons were called up for examination on an incorrect assessment of the number of vacancies. It
F was also contended for the respondents that the provisions of
art. 311 were not attracted.
By judgment, dated March 14, 1963, the learned Sin~
Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. He held
that the deletion of the appellant's name from the panel did not
G amount to reduction in rank under art. 311 and that therefore
he was not entitled to the notice prescribed by that article. The
learned Judge also held that the appellant had not established
that the decision of the respondent amounted to a violation of
any constitutional provision or statutory rule.
The appellant preferred an appeal which was summarily
H
dismissed by a Division Bench.
An application for leave to
appeal to this Court was also rejected. Thereupon, the appellant
obtained special leave from this Court.
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
In support of the appeal, it is contended for the appellant by
Mr. S. P. Sinha, that the deletion of the appellant's name from
the panel amounted to a reduction in rank and that the order was
bad in law for the reason that the appellant was not given an
opportunity to explain or defend himseU before his name was
deleted from the panel.
Now, as has been explained by this
Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India(') the
expressions "dismissal', 'removal' or 'reduction in rank' are technical words taken from the service rules where they are used to
denote the 'three major categories of punishments.
The question for determination is whether the deletion of the
appellant's name from the panel amounts to a reduction in rank
within the meaning of art. 311. Mention has already been made
of the fact that the panel was prepared under the rules.
Rule 8
lays down the procedure to be followed by the Selection Board.
Sub-rule (7) of that rule reads:
.. Eligible stalf up to 4 times the number of anticipated vacancies as defined below shall be called up for
written and/ or viva voce test. . "
Under the above rule, eligible stalf up to four times the number
of anticipated vacancies should be called for written and vii-a voce
test. The vacancies to he filled up were 8 and in addition a panel
of 6 was required to be drawn up; thus for the 14 persons to be
included in the panel, 56 eligible staff were to be called.
On
account of an incorrect assessment of the anticipated vacancies,
92 persons were called to take the promotion examination. The
appellant's number in the eligible staff was after 56 and, but for
the mistake, he would not have been called for the examination.
Rule 11 nrovides that panels for selection posts framed by a
duly constituted Selection Board and approved by the competent
authority shall not be cancelled or amended without reference to
an authority next above thr one that approved the panel.
Now,
the panel was prepared by che Chief Commercial Superintendent.
Gorakhpur, who was suhordinate to the General Manager, North
Eastern Railway.
Tf,.. panel, as originally drawn, was subsequently amended by th~ Chief Commercial Superintendent under
instructions from the General Manager.
This was in accordance
with rule 11.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
In the final list of the perS<llmel included in the panel, the
names of Sahai and Ramanand were included. The name of the
H
first of them was included by reason of the fact that his marks
{I) [t9581 S.C R. 828.
•
' •
'
•
•
' '
,
•
•
'
A
B
T
c
D
E
F
G
H
SRIVASTAVA v. N. E. RLY. (Raju, J.)
65
were not correctly totalled up and the second was included by
reason of the fact that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste. The
complaint made by the appellant is that by reason of the inclusion
of the said two persons in the final panel of Travelling Ticket
Inspectors there was no post in which he could be kept and he
was therefore reverted till another vacancy occurred, that by
reason of the deletion of his name from the panel it would be
necessary for him to appear before another Selection Board and
until his name was again brought into the panel he would have
no chance of being promoted to the post of Travelling Ticket
Inspector.
It i:l to be noted that in the panel prepared by the Selection
Board the word 'provisional' was specifically noted against the
name of the appellant which clearly shows that he did not acquire
a right to the post.
The deletion of his name from the panel
therefore does not attract the provisions of art. 311. If a civil
s.ervant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction
from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the
emoluments and privileges of that rank. If, however, h~ has no
right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher
rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment: vide Dhingra's Case('). It is no doubt true that in the
said case it has been held that when reversion entails penal consequences, it would be reduction in rank, but the instant case is
not one in which penal consequences have been visited on the
appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision
of a Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta as supporting
his contention that the deletion of the appellant's name from the
panel would amount to a reduction in rank.
That decision is
reported as Dineshwar v. Chief Commercial Superintendent,
Eastern Railway(').
At p. 211, the learned Judge observed :
"The question is whether the striking of the petitioner's name from "the panel, has affected his future
right of promotion.
In my opinion, the inescapable
conclusion is that it has so affected the petitioner. As
I have mentioned above, promotion from Class III post
to a Class II post is to be done according to the recommendations made by Selection Boards. Where there is
such a list or a panel, then a person not in the list cannot
hope to be promoted. . . . . It is implied, that in order
(I) [1958] S.C.R. 828.
(2) A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 209.
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966] 3 s.c.R.
to have a chance of promotion, the petitioner would
have to be in the selection list, that is to say, in the
panel. . . . . But with regard to the second contention,
viz., that the striking out of his name from the panel
affected his chances of future promotion, it is a point
of substance and must be upheld. What the authorities
should have done before striking out the name of the
petitioner from the panel was to give him an opportunity of showing cause as to why his name should not be
struck off from the panel and the order could only be
made after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being
heard."
We are of opinion that this is not a correct statement of the law,
A
B
c
in view of the decision of this Court in High Court, Calcutta v.
Amal Kumar Roy(').
There the facts were these. The respoadent was a Munsif in the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial).
When the cases of several Munsifs came up for consideratiOJI
before the High Court for inclusion of names in the panel of om.
D
cers to officiate as Subordinate Judges, the respondent's name was
excluded. He was told by the Registrar of the Court, on a reprer
sentation made by him, that the Court had decided to consider
his case after a year. As the result of such exclusion, the respondent, who was then the seniormost in the list of Munsifs, Jost eight
places in the cadre of Subordinate Judges before he was actually
E
appointed to act as an Additional Subordinate Judge. He filed a
suit praying that a declaration might be made that he occupied
the same position in respect of seniority in the cadre of Subordinate Judges as he would have done if no supersession had take•
place.
His case, in substance, was that as a result of the High
Court's order he was reduced by eight places in the list of SubF
ordinate Judges, and that in law amounted to reduction in rank
within the meaning of art. 311(2) of the Constitution. This Court
held at p. 453 as follows :
"In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because losing places in the same cadre, namely, of
G
Subordinate Judges does not amount to reduction in
rank, within the meaning of art. 311 (2).
The plaintiff
sought to argue that 'rank', in accordance with dictionary meaning, signifies 'relative position or status or
place'. According to Oxford English Dictionary, the
word 'rank' can be and has been used in different sell5C.!I
H
in different contexts. The expression 'rank' in art.
(I) [19631 IS.CR. 437.
'
'
•
•
'
, •
•
•
'
A
B
c
SRIVASTAVA v. N. E. RLY. (Raju,/.)
311 (2) has reference to a person's classification and not
his particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy
of the service to which he belongs.
Hence, in the
context of the Judicial Service of West Bengal, 'reduction in rank' would imply that a person who is already
holding the pos~ of a Subordinate Judge has been
reduced to the position of a Munsif, the rank of a Subordinate Judge being higher than that of a Munsif. But
Subordinate Judges in the same cadre hold the same
rank, though they have to be listed in order of seniority
in the Civil List. Therefore, losing some places in the
seniority list is not tantamount to reduction in rank.
Hence, it must be held that the provisions of Art. 311(2)
of the Constitution are not attracted to this case."
67'
This decision has established the following principle,
viz;.,
the
expression 'rank' in art. 311 (2) has reference to a person's classi-·
fication and not his particular place in the same cadre in the
D hierarchy of the service to which he belongs and therefore losing
some places in the seniority list is not tantamount to reduction in
rank within the meaning of art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.
It is perhaps true that the hopes of the appellant were raised·
by reason of the inclusion of his name in the panel. It is also
E
true that the respondent made an incorrect assessment of the
anitcipated number of vacancies, but the fact remains that his.
inclusion in the panel was expressly stated to be provisional. The
appellant cannot therefore complain of any infraction of the
guarantee given by the Constitution to Government servants.
The appeal fails and is dismissed. In all the circumstances of
F the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed-
•