Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Anshul Garg And Another on 17 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116191-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9761 of 2025
Petitioner :- Union of India and 3 others
Respondent :- Anshul Garg and another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.) with Ashish Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Garg (Respondent In-Person)
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1105 of 2022.
2. The OA was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order dated 24.11.2022 and seeking restoration of his name in the panel dated 01.03.2021 and promotion order dated 05.03.2021 with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent entered into service in Indian Railways on 23.06.2005 as SSE/Drawing (S&T)/HQ/JBP. He made a request for transfer from WCR to NCR during 2017 and based on his request, he was transferred on 13.12.2017 and posted at NC Railway, Agra. A Notification dated 23.09.2019 was issued for selection for promotion from Group-C to Group-B to the post of of ADSTE/ASTE against 30% quota through LDCE for the vacancy year 2017-2019 in S&T Department. The respondent submitted application. After scrutiny, a total of 203 candidates were held eligible to appear in the written test. The respondent appeared in the examination and was declared successful along with 28 other candidates vide result dated 30.12.2020, he cleared medical test and interview, thereafter, a selection panel dated 01.03.2021 was prepared including the name of the respondent and in furtherance of the same, he was promoted as ASTE/Project/HQ/PRYJ vide letter dated 05.03.2021 wherein he joined on 26.03.2021.
4. Suddenly by impugned office order dated 24.11.2022, respondent was intimated that his name is being deleted from the selection list dated 01.03.2021 and also from promotion order dated 05.03.2021 for hiding his seniority details.
5. Various pleas were raised in the OA to which a reply was given that the Notification dated 23.09.2019 provided eligibility criteria 'not less than 5 years of non-fortutious service as on 01.04.2017'. It was claimed that after selection and posting, it came to the notice of the petitioners that the respondent was not eligible to appear in selection as he was not on the roll of NCR on 01.04.2017. Further, as the respondent had joined in NCR on 13.12.2017 on his own request for transfer, he was not eligible to appear in the said selection.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and noticing that the circular relied on by the appellant-Department had been set aside by the Principal Bench and that the circular dated 21.03.2006 does not provide that service rendered in the previous unit/cadre will not be counted for the purpose for calculating the eligibility service period for the purpose of promotion and after referring to the judgment in Pratibha Rani and others Vs. Union of India and others : Civil Appeal No. 3792-3793 of 2019 disposed of on 10.04.2019, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were not justified in passing the order impugned and consequently allowed the OA.
7. Learned A.S.G.I. made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the principle laid down in the case of Pratibha Rani and others (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as in the present case, the circular dated 21.03.2006 would apply and as the respondent was wrongly accorded the eligibility and consequential promotion, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
8. Further submissions were made that in reply to the OA, with reference to the requirements of the circular dated 21.03.2006, it was indicated that the person immediate senior to the respondent was not eligible and therefore, in terms of the circular, the respondent also was not eligible, which aspect has not been taken into consideration and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
9. The respondent appeared in person and supported the order impugned.
10. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the materiel available on record.
11. The undisputed facts are that the respondent was serving with the West Central Railways from where he took voluntary transfer to North Central Railways on 13.12.2017. The Notification issued for the purpose of LDCE qua eligibility provided as under:
"ELIGIBILITY:
The scheme is open to Non-ministerial staff of S&T Department working in Pay Band PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs. 4200/- (present Level 6 of 7th CPC) and in higher Gr. 'C' scales. They will be eligible to appear for Group 'B' selection for the pot of ADSTE/ASTE against 30% quota (LDCE) provided they have rendered not less than 5 years of non-fortuitous service in the grade as on 01.04.2017 including apprenticeship period."
12. A perusal of the above eligibility condition would reveal that the only requirement has been that the non-ministerial staff of S&T Department working in Pay Band PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade pay Rs. 4200/- and in higher Gr. 'C' scales were eligible and further requirement was that the candidates must have rendered 'not less than 5 years of non-fortuitous service in the grade as on 01.04.2017 including apprenticeship period'. There is absolutely no stipulation in the Notification dated 23.09.2019 that non-fortuitous service was required to be only within the North Central Railways. It is not in dispute that as on 01.04.2017, the respondent had completed five years of non-fortuitous service while working with West Central Railways. The indications made providing for the cut-off date as 01.04.2017 is only meant for the purpose that as the Notification was issued on 23.09.2019, the candidates must have completed requisite 5 years service prior to 01.04.2017 and nothing more.
13. The law on account of inter-region transfer has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani and others (supra) as under:
"1. The only question which is required to be examined in these cases is whether in case of a compassionate transfer which is inter- region, the service rendered in the previous posting is liable to be counted in the new posting areas for purposes of eligibility for consideration of such promotion.
2. The appellants are working as Tax Assistants and on account of plea of compassionate grounds, they were transferred inter-region. The stand taken by the respondent-Department is that as per the administrative instructions, the period spent in case of inter-region transfer in the previous region, could not be counted while posting such a person in a new region for eligibility for promotion.
3. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. C.N. Ponnappan (1996) 1 SCC 524 where this very issue was examined in the factual context of the same department as under :
"The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being regular service in the grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the place where he has been transferred, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred."
14. The provisions also in this regard are very clear wherein a candidate on voluntary transfer, though would go at the bottom seniority in his cadre, for the purpose of eligibility, his previous service prior to transfer rendered in the feeder cadre cannot get wiped out. As noticed, the respondent, admittedly, has completed 5 years of service as on 01.04.2017, the requisite cut-off date, while working in West Central Railways and, therefore, is eligible.
15. Counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions based on the indications made in the reply to the OA that his immediate senior was not eligible to appear in the said selection and, therefore, in terms of the circular dated 21.03.2006, the respondent was not eligible.
16. The said plea raised by the petitioners cannot be accepted, which apparently was not even the case of the petitioners while passing the order dated 24.11.2022, as the same reads as under:
"It is stated that you had joined/posted in NCR on 13.12.2017 on own request transfer, whereas the cut off date for eligibility was 01.04.2017. As such you were not eligible to appear in the said selection ab initio in terms of Board's letter dated 21.03.2006.
You have also hide your seniority details and the fact that you were not the employee of NCR as on cut off date for deciding the eligibility and you had applied for the above selection.
In view of the facts explained above, your name is being deleted from the selection list and the promotion order issued vide office order no. 51/2021 dated 15.03.2021."
17. A perusal of the above would reveal that only indication made is that the cut-off date for eligibility was 01.04.2017 and, as such, the respondent was not eligible to appear in the said selection ab-initio. Further allegations were made that the respondent hid his seniority details and the fact that 'he was not employee of NCR as on cut-off date for deciding the eligibility and he had applied for the above selection'. The only ground taken was that he was not working with NCR on 01.04.2017, the cut-off date and, therefore, he was not eligible. No other ground was taken for holding the respondent disentitled for promotion already accorded and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised in response to the OA, which apparently was not pressed before the Tribunal, cannot now be permitted to be resurrected.
18. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
19. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.7.2025
P.Sri.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
