S PRASHANTH vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00676/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON: 08.10.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 23.10.2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
S.Prashanth
S/o Late Shankar
Aged 31 years
Junior Accounts Assistant
O/o Senior Divisional Finance Manager
S.W. Railway Divisional Office
Bengaluru-560023 …Applicant
(By Advocate Shri K. Shivakumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by MEMBER (FINANCE)
Ministry of Railway,
Railway Board
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
2. Principal Finance Advisor
South Western Railway
Rail Soudha, Gadag Road,
Hubballi-580020 ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri Sayed S. Kazi)
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
2
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
O R D E R
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application under Section 19 of the C.A.T. Act, 1985
has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Call for the records and on perusal quash the
communication dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A8) as illogical,
unconstitutional and against rules;
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant
on the strength of the Annexures-A10, A11 and A - 12 and
order to include his name in the final panel seniority and to
promote him to the post of Senior Section Officer at par with
those promoted vide Annexure-A6 with all consequential
benefits and
(iii) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper
in the interest of justice & equity.”
2. These reliefs are claimed on the grounds set out in para 5, which are
as follows:-
“5(1). The applicant has been denied with the promotion by
the second respondent by taking shelter under Railway
Board's order dated 02.06.2015 in which it has been stated
that 5 years continuous service in Group C post in Railway
Accounts office is required. The copy of the said Railway
Board letter communicated by the second respondent on
03.06.2015 is placed as Annexure-A9. It is illogical and
unacceptable as per the DOP&T O.M dated 30.04.2010. In the
said O.M, it has been clearly stated that all the Group D posts
are upgraded to Group C and there will be no further
recruitment in Group D. As per that, the post of Peon in GP
Rs. 1800 is Group C and the service of the applicant from the
date of initial appointment to be considered as Group C
service and by wrong interpretation and with no updating
knowledge, the second respondent has taken the illogical
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
3
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
decision. The copy of the DOP&T' O.M dated 30.04.2010 is
placed as Annexure-A10.
5(2). The Railway Board Establishment circular no. 02/2014
dated 07.01.2014 also reiterates that all the erstwhile Group
D categories are upgraded to Group C. So it clearly
establishes that the stand taken by the second respondent in
the case of the applicant is incorrect. The copy of the RBE
no.2/2014 communicated through corrigendum dated
07.01.2014 is placed as Annexure-A11.
5(3). Recently in their communication dated 14.11.2022, the
Railway Board has clarified in para 2 that "level-1 employees
(erstwhile Group D) who are now classified as Group C........"
which also proves that the stand taken by the second
respondent is wrong. The copy of the communication dated
14.11.2022 is placed as Annexure-A12.
5(4).When the examination has been conducted by Railway
Board and the result has been declared by the Railway Board,
the second respondent cannot take a unilateral decision of
removing the name of the applicant from the selected panel for
which the second respondent has no jurisdiction. Taking a
unilateral decision with no authority is very much
unconstitutional.
5(5).When all the posts in Group D were upgraded to Group
C on the implementation of sixth pay commission, the entire
service of the applicant to be taken as in Group C only.
Thereby he has completed more than 6 years of service in
Group C on the date of notification (20.02.2024) issued by the
Railway Board.
5(6). In the advance correction slip no.282 communicated
under RBA no. 27/2023 (which is the part of the notification),
in para 4,the eligibility condition for appearing in the
Appendix -III examination has been stipulated. In that, no such
condition of 5 years service as Group C has been stipulated. It
is not mentioned in the notification also. In the absence of that,
it cannot be insisted at the time of issuing promotion order as
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
4
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
the selection to be based only on the conditions mentioned in
the notification.
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the synopsis, are as follows:-
“1. The applicant who is presently working as Junior Accounts
Assistant in Bengaluru division of South Western Railway
appeared for the Appendix -III (IREM) examination 2024
conducted by the Railway Board and declared as successful.
Having qualified in the examination, he was subjected for
medical examination and for orientation training programme
from 19.8.2024 to 27.09.2024. In the provisional panel
seniority list issued on 13.09.2024 (Annexure A-3),his name
was figuring at sl.no.37. But in the final panel seniority list
issued on 26.09.2024 (Annexure A-5), his name was left out
and the promotion order was issued on 27.09.2024 (Annexure
A-6) only to those whose names figured in the final panel list.
2. On inquiring for the reason, it has been stated that he did
not have 5 years of service in Group 'C’. As he was allowed to
appear for the examination only after verifying the details
furnished and no such condition stipulated in the notification,
the decision of the respondents in non promoting the applicant
even after having been placed in the selected panel is very
much illogical, unacceptable and against rules. So, the
applicant has no other alternative remedy than to approach
this Hon'ble Tribunal for getting justice.”
4. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statements, no
rejoinder has been filed by the applicants, thereafter memo with
documents have been filed by the applicant.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 08.10.2026. Shri K.
Shivakumar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Sayed S. Kazi,
learned counsel for the respondents, were present and heard.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
5
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
6. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival
contentions.
Consideration of the issues:
7. The material facts relating to the applicant’s appointment,
subsequent promotion, participation in the Appendix-III examination and
qualification therein are not in dispute. The applicant was initially
appointed as General Assistant in Level-1, corresponding to the erstwhile
Group D category, on 12.05.2017 in the Accounts Department. He was
subsequently promoted as Accounts Clerk in Level-2 on 14.03.2022. He
thereafter appeared in the Appendix-III examination conducted on
18.06.2024 and 19.06.2024 and was declared successful on 09.08.2024.
He attended the online orientation programme on 19.08.2024, and his
DAR and Vigilance clearance were forwarded to Headquarters on
23.08.2024. A provisional panel seniority list was issued on 13.09.2024,
his medical examination was conducted on 16.09.2024, and his preference
for place of posting was obtained on 23.09.2024. Subsequently, the final
panel seniority list was issued on 26.09.2024, followed by the promotion
order dated 27.09.2024 in respect of the other successful candidates.
However, the applicant’s name was omitted from the final panel, although
it had figured in the provisional panel.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
6
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. Aggrieved by the omission, the applicant submitted representations
dated 27.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, which are collectively referred to in
Annexure-A7. In response, the second respondent issued the impugned
communication dated 07.10.2024 bearing No. AAD/SWR/3/1/Vol.IV,
informing the applicant that he was ineligible for inclusion in the final
panel for want of the prescribed five years of service in Group C. The
relevant portion of the communication reads as follows:
“5 years/3 years services stipulated in Para 6/App3
IREM/Vol.I for appearing in Appendix-3 IREM examinations
should be in Group C posts in Accounts Department so as to
ensure that the candidate has adequate experience in
working of the department. In this regard a Corrigendum was
issued by this office vide Ltr.No.AAD/SWR/87/Vol.IV,
dt:03.06.2015 to all units of SWR Accounts. As such
Shri.Prashanth S, JAA who has completed 1 year 11 months
service in Gr.C till the date of notification is not eligible to
appear Appendix-III (IREM)-2024 Examination and
therefore he is not considered in the final panel seniority of
Appendix-III qualified candidates.”
9. The controversy in the present Original Application is narrow. It
concerns the interpretation and application of the eligibility condition
contained in paragraph 4(a) of Appendix-III to Volume I of the Indian
Railway Establishment Manual (IREM), particularly the proviso
prescribing the requisite period of continuous service in a Group C post in
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
7
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
a Railway Accounts Office. The relevant provision, as relied upon by the
parties, reads:
“Provided that no such Railway Servant will ordinarily be
considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless
he/she has completed 5 years continuous service in Group
‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office or 3 years continuous
service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office if
he/she is a Graduate.”
10. The rival contentions turn principally on the interpretation of the
expression “5 years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway
Accounts Office”. The applicant advances a literal interpretation of the
provision. According to him, since his initial appointment as General
Assistant was in the Accounts Department and the erstwhile Group D
posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 had been upgraded and classified as
Group C following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
recommendations, his service from the date of initial appointment must
also count towards the prescribed period.
The respondents, on the other hand, advocate a purposive and harmonious
interpretation. According to them, the requirement is not merely five years
of service in any Group C post situated in the Accounts Department. It is
five years of service in the relevant ministerial or clerical cadre in the
Accounts Department, so that the candidate acquires adequate practical
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
8
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
experience in accounting and departmental work. Since the applicant was
promoted to the post of Accounts Clerk in Level-2 only on 14.03.2022,
the respondents contend that he had completed only one year and eleven
months of qualifying service in the relevant cadre by the date of the
notification dated 20.02.2024 and, therefore, did not satisfy the eligibility
condition.
The principal question, accordingly, is whether the prescribed period of
service must necessarily be rendered in the ministerial or clerical cadre of
the Accounts Department, or whether service rendered in a Level-1 Group
C post in the same department can also be counted for the purpose of the
proviso.
11. It is not disputed that the applicant had rendered service in the
Accounts Department from the date of his initial appointment on
12.05.2017 and that he entered the clerical cadre only on 14.03.2022. The
dispute is, therefore, not about the length of his overall service in the
Accounts Department, but about the character of the service that can be
reckoned towards the eligibility requirement under the proviso.
The respondents’ interpretation proceeds on the premise that the
prescribed period of service must be spent in the clerical or ministerial
cadre, where the substantive accounting functions are performed. The
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
9
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
applicant’s case, however, is that the provision does not expressly impose
such a restriction and that his service in the Level-1 post, being service in
a Group C post in the Railway Accounts Office, cannot be excluded by
introducing a condition that the rule does not state.
12. To resolve this controversy, it is necessary to examine the relevant
versions of Appendix-III to the IREM placed before us and the subsequent
instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and the
Railway Board concerning the classification of the erstwhile Group D
posts.
The original Revised Edition of 1989 of Volume I of the IREM,
Appendix-III, paragraph 4, reads as follows:
“4. No railway servant will be permitted to appear for the
examination unless:
(a) He has passed the examination laid down in Appendix 2
for promotion above the rank of Clerks Grade II or he has
exempted from passing that examination under the provision
of any general rule laid down in this Manual or separately by
the Railway Board or holds the post of a Clerk Grade I
substantively.
Provided that no such railway servant will ordinarily be
considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless
he is permanent and has completed 5 years Continuous
service in a Railway Accounts Office, or three years if he is a
Graduate.”
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
10
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
The above provision, as originally framed, prescribed the requirement of
passing the examination laid down in Appendix-2 or satisfying the
specified alternative conditions. Its proviso further required permanent
status and the prescribed period of continuous service in a Railway
Accounts Office, with a shorter period for graduates.
13. The respondents have relied upon the Railway Board’s clarification
dated 02.06.2015, communicated by the second respondent through the
corrigendum dated 03.06.2015, bearing No. AAD/SWR/87/Vol.IV. The
relevant portion reads:
“In view of the clarifications issued by the Railway Board
vide letter No. 2015/AC-II/20/App-3 dated 02.06.2015, the
eligibility (Para 2.1.1(a)) for appearing in Appendix 3
(IREM) Examination 2015 issued vide this office Notification
of even No. dated 13.05.2015 may be read as
(a) has passed the examination laid down in Appendix-2
IREM for promotion above the rank of Accounts Clerk or has
been exempted from passing that examination under the
provisions of any General Rule laid down in IREM or
separately by the Railway Board or holds the post of Junior
Accounts Assistant substantively.
Provided that no such Railway Servant will ordinarily be
considered eligible for appearing in this examination unless
he/she has completed 5 years continuous service in Group
‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office or 3 years continuous
service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office if
he/she is a Graduate,
Other contents in the Notification remain the same.”
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
11
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
14. The respondents have also produced Annexure-R4, which is the
same corrigendum dated 03.06.2015. The original Revised Edition of
1989 of Appendix-III, as relied upon by the applicant, has also been placed
before us. A comparison of these documents shows that the 2015
clarification modified the description of the qualifying examination and
the relevant posts and expressly incorporated the requirement of
continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office.
Significantly, the express requirement that the candidate must be
permanent, as found in the original version, does not appear in the quoted
proviso as reproduced in the 2015 corrigendum.
15. The material question is the significance of the expression “Group
‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office” introduced in the 2015 clarification.
The provision undoubtedly requires service in a Group C post in a Railway
Accounts Office. However, it does not expressly state that the entire
qualifying period must be spent in the post of Accounts Clerk, Junior
Accounts Assistant, or any other specified ministerial or clerical post. Nor
does the proviso expressly state that the five-year period must commence
only after the candidate has passed the examination prescribed in
Appendix-2 or entered the clerical cadre.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
12
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
The requirement of having passed the examination prescribed in
Appendix-2 and the requirement of the prescribed period of service are
separately expressed conditions. They must, therefore, be read together
without importing into the proviso an additional restriction that is not
apparent from its text. The fact that paragraph 4(a) refers to the
examination prescribed in Appendix-2 does not, by itself, establish that
the qualifying period of service under the proviso must be reckoned
exclusively from the date of passing that examination or appointment to
the clerical cadre.
At the same time, the expression cannot be read in isolation from the
scheme of the examination and the requirement that the service should be
in a Railway Accounts Office. The nature of the post, its classification and
its location in the departmental structure are relevant considerations. The
question is whether those considerations justify the respondents’
insistence that only service in the ministerial or clerical cadre can be
counted, despite the broader language employed in the 2015 clarification.
16. In this context, the applicant has relied upon Annexure-A10, the
Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training
bearing No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt(RR), dated 30.04.2010, under the
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
13
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
subject “Model Recruitment Rules for Group C posts in Pay Band-1 with
Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 (Pre-revised Group D posts)”. The relevant portion
reads:
“the 6th CPC recommended that all Group D posts in the
Government will stand upgraded to Group C , pay band-1
with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 , along with incumbents (after
suitable training, wherever required) and Model Recruitment
Rules (Annex-I) have been framed keeping in view the
recommendations of the Pay Commission. All the
Ministries/Departments are requested to amend the
Recruitment Rules for the erstwhile Group’ D’ posts as per
the Model RRs and the recommendations of the Pay
Commission.”
The applicant relies upon this Office Memorandum to contend that the
erstwhile Group D posts, including his initial post, were upgraded and
classified as Group C following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission recommendations. Consequently, according to him, his
service in the Level-1 post cannot be disregarded merely because the post
was formerly classified as Group D.
17. The applicant has also relied upon Annexure-A11, communicated
on 07.01.2014, enclosing Railway Board Establishment Circular No.
02/2014 dated 03.01.2014, bearing the subject “Classification of Railway
Services consequent upon introduction of RS (RP) Rules, 2008-Eligibility
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
14
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
for selection to Group ‘C’ in General Categories”. The relevant portion
reads:
“Accordingly, it has been decided that all erstwhile Group
‘D’ categories in G.P. Rs.1800, since upgraded as Group
‘C’, will continue to be eligible for selection to Group ‘C’
posts as per the AVC already provided, if they possess the
required eligibility criteria i.e. prescribed educational
qualification and residency period etc. They will also be
eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of
Stenographers (G.P. Rs.2400), if they possess the required
eligibility criteria.”
The above instruction supports the applicant’s contention that the
erstwhile Group D categories carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 1800 were
classified as Group C and could be considered for selection to other Group
C posts, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility criteria. It is,
however, necessary to distinguish between the general classification of a
post as Group C and the specific qualifying service prescribed for a
particular departmental examination. The former does not automatically
dispense with the latter. The classification instructions are nevertheless
relevant in determining whether service rendered in the applicant’s Level-
1 post can be excluded solely on the ground that the post was formerly
classified as Group D.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
15
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. The applicant has further relied upon Annexure-A12, the Railway
Board’s communication dated 14.11.2022, bearing No. E(NG)I-
2022/PM20/2, under the subject “Eligibility of Level-1 (erstwhile Group
‘D’) employees for appearing the Selection of Publicity Inspector of
Level-5”. The communication reads as follows:
“In terms of instructions contained in Board’s letter No.
E(NG)I/89/PM20/2 dated 28.03.1989 (RBE No.89/1989), the
vacancies in the post of Publicity Inspector in Level-5 are to
be filled up on the basis of a Departmental Competitive
Examination from amongst the Graduate Railway employees,
who have completed 5 years service in Group ‘C’ in any of
the Departments of the Railway, and are not above 35 years
of age. The employees selected as Publicity Inspector are
imparted 45 days training in Zonal Training Schools and are
attached to Newspaper/AIR/Doordarshan for a period of two
weeks before being put to working posts.
One of the Railways has sought clarification as to whether
all Gr. “C” staff from Level-1 to Level-4 would be eligible
for appearing the selection for the post of Publicity Inspector
of Level 5. The matter has been examined and with approval
of competent authority it is clarified that Level-1 employees
(erstwhile Group ‘D’), who are now classified as Group C,
are also eligible for the selection to the post of Publicity
Inspector in Level-5.
Please acknowledge receipt.
This disposes off Eastern Railway’s letter No.E.839/T-
HQ/CPRO/Promotion/NH/Pt.II dated 14.10.2022.”
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
16
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
19. A plain reading of the above communication shows that the
Railway Board, upon considering the question whether Level-1
employees belonging to the erstwhile Group D category could compete
for selection to the Level-5 post of Publicity Inspector, clarified that such
employees, having been classified as Group C, were also eligible to
participate in the selection, subject to the applicable conditions.
The applicant relies upon this clarification as an instance of the Railway
Board recognising the eligibility of Level-1 employees for advancement
to a higher-level post through a departmental competitive examination. He
contends that the same general classification principle ought to be applied
to his case, particularly because the 2015 corrigendum governing the
Appendix-III examination expressly refers to continuous service in a
Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office without specifying that the
service must be exclusively in the clerical or ministerial cadre.
20. We have considered the relevance of Annexure-A12 with due
regard to the fact that it concerns a different post and a different selection
scheme. The clarification relating to Publicity Inspectors cannot, by itself,
override or alter the eligibility conditions prescribed for the Appendix-III
examination. Nor does the classification of Level-1 employees as Group
C necessarily mean that every period of service in such a post must be
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
17
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
counted towards the qualifying service for every departmental
examination.
Nevertheless, the communication is relevant to the limited extent that it
demonstrates the Railway Board’s recognition that employees in Level-1
posts, though formerly classified as Group D, are now Group C employees
and may be considered for selection to higher-level posts where the
applicable rules permit. It also reinforces the need to interpret the
expression used in the 2015 corrigendum according to its actual terms,
rather than automatically excluding the applicant’s Level-1 service merely
because it was rendered before his promotion to the clerical cadre.
21. The applicant further points out that, pursuant to the notification
dated 20.02.2024, he submitted his application on 26.02.2024 and was
permitted to participate in the examination conducted on 18.06.2024 and
19.06.2024. He was declared successful by memorandum dated
09.08.2024. His name was thereafter included at Serial No. 37 in the
provisional panel seniority list dated 13.09.2024, Annexure-A3. His
medical fitness was also recorded, and his preference for place of posting
was obtained before the final panel was issued.
The applicant emphasises that the relevant particulars concerning his
initial appointment and entry into the Accounts Department were available
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
18
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
to the respondents throughout the selection process. In particular,
Annexure-A3 records his date of appointment as 12.05.2017 and his date
of entry into the Accounts Department also as 12.05.2017. He contends
that the respondents had the necessary information to determine his
eligibility and, having scrutinised his application and permitted him to
participate in the examination, could not subsequently exclude him from
the final panel without a legally sustainable reason.
22. The respondents’ stand, as reflected in the impugned
communication, is that the applicant had completed only one year and
eleven months of service in Group C in the relevant clerical cadre as on
the date of the notification. Their interpretation is founded on the premise
that the qualifying service contemplated by paragraph 4(a) must be service
in the ministerial or clerical cadre of the Accounts Department, where the
relevant accounting work is performed.
The underlying administrative consideration advanced by the respondents
is not without relevance. A departmental examination intended to select
personnel for higher supervisory posts may legitimately prescribe prior
experience in the relevant functions or cadre. If the governing rule
expressly requires such experience, an employee cannot claim eligibility
merely because the post held by him is classified as Group C. The
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
19
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
question, however, is whether the particular restriction asserted by the
respondents is actually contained in the applicable provision or can
properly be inferred from its scheme and purpose.
23. In the present case, the 2015 corrigendum uses the expression “5
years continuous service in Group ‘C’ post in Railway Accounts Office”.
It does not use the expressions “ministerial cadre”, “clerical cadre”,
“Accounts Clerk” or “service after passing the Appendix-2 examination”
in the proviso prescribing the period of qualifying service. The
respondents seek to read such a restriction into the provision on the basis
of the functional requirements of the higher post.
Although a purposive interpretation must take account of the object and
scheme of a provision, it cannot ordinarily be employed to add a
substantive eligibility condition that the rule-making authority has not
expressed, particularly when the words used are capable of being applied
according to their ordinary meaning. The object of securing adequate
departmental experience must be considered alongside the actual language
adopted by the Railway Board. A construction that gives effect to both the
stated eligibility condition and the evident departmental purpose is
preferable to one that effectively substitutes a different condition for the
one prescribed.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
20
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
24. The distinction between classification and cadre eligibility must
nevertheless be maintained. The upgradation of erstwhile Group D posts
to Group C does not, by itself, merge different cadres, equate their duties,
or confer an automatic right to promotion to a higher post. An employee
must satisfy all applicable conditions governing the particular
examination and subsequent promotion. The applicant’s case cannot,
therefore, succeed solely on the ground that his Level-1 post was classified
as Group C.
The material consideration is that the 2015 corrigendum itself expresses
the service requirement in terms of continuous service in a Group C post
in a Railway Accounts Office. The applicant’s initial post was in the
Accounts Department, and the respondents have not disputed the date
from which he entered that department. The applicant also passed the
examination prescribed at the preceding stage and subsequently served as
Accounts Clerk in Level-2. On these facts, the issue is whether the
respondents are justified in excluding the entire period of his Level-1
service from the qualifying period, despite the absence of an express
restriction to the clerical cadre in the proviso.
25. We find that the respondents’ interpretation places decisive
emphasis on the nature of the duties performed in the clerical cadre,
whereas the text of the proviso refers to the classification of the post and
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
21
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
the establishment in which the service is rendered. Had the Railway Board
intended to restrict the qualifying period to service in a specified clerical
or ministerial post, it could have stated so expressly. The wording
employed in the 2015 corrigendum does not contain such a qualification.
It is not for this Tribunal to substitute its own view of the most desirable
eligibility criterion for that prescribed by the competent authority.
Equally, the respondents cannot apply a narrower criterion merely
because, in their view, it would better serve the functional purpose of the
examination. The prescribed condition must be applied as framed, subject
to a construction consistent with the scheme of the relevant rules.
26. The applicant’s reliance upon the Railway Board’s communication
dated 14.11.2022 lends contextual support to his interpretation. As already
observed, that communication does not govern the Appendix-III
examination directly. It does, however, demonstrate that the Railway
Board has recognised Level-1 employees, formerly classified as Group D,
as Group C employees and has permitted their consideration for selection
to a higher-level post under the applicable scheme. This reinforces the
conclusion that the respondents cannot treat the applicant’s former Group
D classification, by itself, as sufficient reason to exclude his Level-1
service from consideration.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
22
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
The respondents have not demonstrated, by reference to an express
provision in the applicable rule, that service rendered by a Group C
employee in Level-1 in the Railway Accounts Office must invariably be
disregarded for the purpose of the five-year requirement under the 2015
corrigendum. Their reliance on the functional distinction between Level-
1 and the clerical cadre does not, without more, establish that the narrower
construction is mandated by the text of the provision.
27. We have also considered the significance of the respondents
permitting the applicant to participate in the examination and subsequently
including his name in the provisional panel. It is settled in principle that
an administrative authority’s erroneous decision to permit a candidate to
participate in a selection process cannot, by itself, confer eligibility
contrary to a binding statutory rule. There can be no estoppel against a
statutory requirement, and a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible
right to appointment merely by participating in an examination or being
declared successful.
However, the applicant does not rely solely upon the respondents’ earlier
conduct. He has also placed before us the relevant classification
instructions and the text of the 2015 corrigendum. His case is that, on a
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
23
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
proper interpretation of those materials, the service rendered by him in
Level-1 is capable of being counted towards the prescribed period. In that
context, the respondents’ prior scrutiny of his application, permission to
participate, declaration of results and inclusion in the provisional panel are
relevant circumstances in assessing the fairness and consistency of the
subsequent decision to exclude him.
28. The doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override an express
statutory disqualification or create a substantive right contrary to the
governing rules. Nevertheless, where the applicable provision is
reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, the conduct of the
administration, the information available to it at the relevant time and the
consistency of its application of the governing instructions may be
relevant in determining whether the interpretation subsequently adopted
is fair and legally sustainable.
In the present case, the applicant disclosed his relevant service particulars,
was permitted to participate after scrutiny, qualified in the examination
and was included in the provisional panel. His name was omitted only
from the final panel, on the ground that his service in the clerical cadre
was insufficient. While the earlier stages of the selection process do not,
independently, establish a right to promotion, the subsequent exclusion
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
24
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
must still be justified by the applicable eligibility provision. The impugned
communication must, therefore, stand or fall on the correctness of the
interpretation adopted by the respondents.
29. The respondents’ interpretation seeks to read the five-year service
requirement as necessarily requiring five years of service in the ministerial
or clerical cadre of the Accounts Department. The difficulty with that
interpretation is that the proviso, as reproduced in the 2015 corrigendum,
does not expressly prescribe such a limitation. The rule refers to
continuous service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. In the
absence of a demonstrated provision restricting the qualifying service to
the clerical cadre, the respondents’ interpretation would introduce an
additional condition into the text.
The fact that the applicant had served as Accounts Clerk for only one year
and eleven months by the relevant date is not, by itself, sufficient to
establish his ineligibility if his earlier service in a Group C post in the same
Accounts Office is liable to be counted under the language of the proviso.
The applicant’s case must be examined on the basis of the actual condition
prescribed and not on the basis of a narrower condition that the
respondents consider preferable.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
25
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
30. We are conscious that a purposive and harmonious construction
requires the provision to be read in the context of the overall recruitment
and promotion scheme, including the nature of the higher supervisory
posts and the experience reasonably expected of the candidates. Such
considerations may support a requirement of prior experience in the
relevant accounting functions. However, the purpose of a rule cannot be
used to disregard its language or to incorporate a restriction that is not
expressed in it.
The Railway Board, while issuing the 2015 clarification, could have
specified that the qualifying period must be completed in the ministerial
or clerical cadre, or in a particular post or pay level, if that was its
intention. The proviso, as framed, instead refers broadly to continuous
service in a Group C post in a Railway Accounts Office. The respondents’
interpretation does not adequately explain why the broader expression
employed in the corrigendum should be read as confined to service in the
clerical cadre.
31. The applicant’s case is further supported by the fact that his service
in the Accounts Department commenced on 12.05.2017 and continued
after his promotion to Accounts Clerk on 14.03.2022. By the time of the
notification dated 20.02.2024, he had rendered more than five years of
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
26
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
service in the Accounts Department. His Level-1 post, following the
applicable classification, was treated as a Group C post. He had also
passed the examination prescribed at the preceding stage and successfully
completed the Appendix-III examination.
On a plain reading of the proviso, the relevant question is whether he had
completed the prescribed period of continuous service in a Group C post
in the Railway Accounts Office. The text does not expressly require the
entire period to have been served in the clerical cadre. In the circumstances
of this case, the respondents have not established a sufficient textual basis
for excluding the applicant’s earlier service in Level-1 from the qualifying
period.
32. We accordingly find that the respondents’ reliance upon the
functional distinction between Level-1 and Level-2, without identifying
an express provision requiring five years of service exclusively in the
clerical or ministerial cadre, does not provide a sufficient basis for
sustaining the impugned decision. This conclusion does not mean that
service in any Group C post must necessarily count for every departmental
examination. The service must satisfy the particular requirements of the
applicable rule, including the requirement that it be rendered in the
specified department or establishment. Our conclusion is confined to the
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
27
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
wording of the proviso governing the Appendix-III examination and the
facts established in the present case.
33. The respondents’ conduct during the selection process must also be
viewed in this context. The applicant’s service particulars were available
to the authorities when his application was scrutinised. He was permitted
to take the examination, declared successful and included in the
provisional panel. The respondents subsequently excluded him from the
final panel on the basis of an interpretation that restricts the qualifying
period to service in the clerical cadre, although the proviso does not
expressly state that requirement.
As noted earlier, the principle that there can be no estoppel against
statutory rules prevents the applicant from relying on the respondents’
earlier actions as an independent source of eligibility. However, where the
applicable text does not support the additional restriction asserted by the
respondents, their earlier conduct reinforces the need for a consistent and
reasoned application of the governing provision. The impugned
communication does not adequately address the distinction between the
language of the proviso and the narrower criterion adopted by the
respondents.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
28
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
34. We have also considered whether the applicant’s claim must be
rejected on the ground that permission to participate in the examination
does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion. There is no dispute
about that general principle. Qualification in an examination, inclusion in
a provisional panel or even inclusion in a select list does not, by itself,
dispense with the applicable eligibility conditions or create an
unconditional right to appointment or promotion.
The applicant’s case, however, is not founded merely upon his success in
the examination. It rests on his interpretation of the 2015 corrigendum,
read with the instructions concerning the classification of erstwhile Group
D posts and the undisputed facts relating to his service in the Accounts
Department. For the reasons already stated, we find that the respondents
have not established that the five-year qualifying period must necessarily
consist exclusively of service in the clerical or ministerial cadre. The
applicant’s exclusion from the final panel on that basis cannot, therefore,
be sustained.
35. The principles of fairness and legitimate expectation provide
additional context to the above conclusion, although they cannot
independently override the governing rules. The applicant furnished his
particulars without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
29
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
respondents scrutinised his application and permitted him to participate in
the examination. His result was declared and his name appeared in the
provisional panel. The subsequent omission of his name, based on a
restrictive interpretation not expressly stated in the proviso, has materially
affected his prospects of promotion.
In these circumstances, the impugned communication cannot be sustained
merely on the ground that the applicant had not completed five years in
the clerical cadre. The eligibility condition must be applied in accordance
with its language and the applicable classification instructions. Since the
respondents have not demonstrated that the applicant’s earlier service in
Level-1 is excluded by the governing provision, the basis on which his
name was omitted from the final panel is unsustainable.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the applicant’s service in
the Level-1 Group C post in the Railway Accounts Department cannot be
excluded from consideration merely because the post was formerly
classified as Group D or because it preceded his promotion to the clerical
cadre. The wording of the proviso introduced through the 2015
corrigendum does not expressly restrict the qualifying period to service in
the ministerial or clerical cadre. The respondents’ interpretation, in the
absence of a specific rule supporting that restriction, cannot be accepted.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
30
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
We, therefore, find that the applicant has made out a case for interference
with the impugned communication dated 07.10.2024. In view of this
conclusion, it is unnecessary to rest the decision upon any independent
power of relaxation or condonation of service. The applicant’s case is to
be considered in accordance with the applicable eligibility provision,
properly interpreted, and the consequential relief granted on that basis.
37. The Original Application accordingly deserves to be allowed. The
impugned communication dated 07.10.2024 is liable to be set aside, and
the respondents are required to reconsider the applicant’s claim for
inclusion in the final panel seniority list and promotion to the post of
Senior Section Officer, Accounts, in accordance with the interpretation of
the applicable provision set out above and with the consequential benefits
admissible under the rules.
Order:
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is
allowed in the following terms:
(i) The communication dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-A8) is hereby set
aside.
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA
31
OA.No.170/00676/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(ii) The respondents are directed to include the applicant’s name in the
final panel seniority list and promote him to the post of Senior Section
Officer at par with the candidates promoted vide Annexure-A6, with all
consequential benefits admissible under the applicable rules.
(iii) The above directions shall be implemented expeditiously and, in
any event, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
(iv) All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
( DR. SANJIV KUMAR ) ( JUSTICE S. SUJATHA )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/cv/
CHHAY
CHHAYA
VERMA
CAT Bangalore
2026.10.27
15:50:44+05'30'
A
VERMA