Eligibility under DRM guidelines does not create an enforceable right to DRM posting.

The applicant, an Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE) officer of the 1996 batch serving in the Senior Administrative Grade, sought recalculation of IRSE vacancies for the 2024 DRM panel, constitution of a supplementary panel, and his posting as Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) with consequential benefits.

Under the DRM guidelines dated 3 September 2024, 14 of the 68 DRM posts were allocated to IRSE. For the 2024 panel year, four IRSE vacancies arose and six officers were shortlisted in the ratio of 1.5 times the vacancies; the applicant was placed sixth in seniority and was consequently not posted, while the four senior officers were posted.

The applicant contended that eight vacancies arising after the completion of tenure of IRSE officers posted in 2021 ought to have been included in the 2024 panel, particularly because 2024 was treated as a transitional year under the revised guidelines.

The respondents maintained that those vacancies belonged to the 2022–2023 panel under the then-prevailing guidelines dated 16 August 2016 and were validly filled from that panel, including by exercise of the relaxation power in administrative exigencies and public interest.

The applicant had not challenged either set of DRM guidelines or impleaded the officers appointed pursuant to the impugned posting orders.

Whether an IRSE officer shortlisted for the 2024 DRM panel, but placed below the number of available IRSE vacancies, possesses a legal, vested, statutory, or enforceable right to be appointed or posted as a DRM.

Whether the eight vacancies arising upon completion of tenure of IRSE officers posted from the 2020–2021 panel were required to be treated as vacancies for the 2024 panel under the revised DRM guidelines dated 3 September 2024, rather than being filled from the 2022–2023 panel under the earlier guidelines dated 16 August 2016.

Whether the Tribunal could direct recalculation of vacancies, preparation of a supplementary panel, and the applicant’s posting as DRM.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service-related grievances.

The DRM guidelines dated 3 September 2024 provide that DRM posting is an ex-cadre posting in the same Senior Administrative Grade and is not a promotion or an appointment carrying additional pecuniary benefit.

Shortlisting is to be made service-wise, in order of seniority and at 1.5 times the vacancies arising in the relevant panel year; shortlisted officers are to be posted against vacancies earmarked for their service in seniority order.

The panel caters to vacancies arising from 1 January to 31 December of the relevant year, and unfilled requirements are to be met from the same panel even after 31 December.

The competent authority may relax the guidelines for administrative requirements and public interest, provided reasons are recorded in writing, and the Ministry of Railways has the final authority regarding interpretation and application of the guidelines.

In State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar, AIR 1965 SC 1196, the Supreme Court held that administrative instructions do not have the force of statutory rules and do not create enforceable rights.

In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Court held that service guidelines ordinarily do not confer legally enforceable rights and that courts or tribunals should not substitute their judgment for that of the competent administrative authority absent mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.

State of Haryana v. S.M. Sharma, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 252, further establishes that an employee has no right to insist upon being given a particular current duty charge or posting.

The Tribunal held that the vacancies relating to the eight IRSE officers were governed by the 16 August 2016 guidelines because the officers’ replacement and the filling of the vacancies occurred in connection with the 2022–2023 panel, before the revised guidelines of 3 September 2024 came into operation.

Under the earlier guidelines, the requirements were to be filled from the same panel even after the close of the relevant period; therefore, the respondents were entitled to fill those vacancies from the 2022–2023 panel, particularly in view of the Covid-19-related delay and asserted administrative exigencies.

The revised guidelines did not operate retrospectively and could not be invoked to recharacterise vacancies already allocated and filled under the earlier policy.

For the 2024 panel, the applicant was duly considered and placed sixth, but only four IRSE vacancies were available; the posting of the four senior officers was therefore consistent with the seniority-based scheme in the revised guidelines.

Moreover, the applicant had not challenged the governing guidelines or impleaded the officers whose appointments would be affected, independently defeating the claim for relief.

Since DRM posting is neither a promotion nor a vested service entitlement, and no mala fides, statutory violation, or legal infirmity was established, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the administrative allocation of vacancies and postings.

The eight disputed vacancies were validly treated as belonging to the 2022–2023 panel and were lawfully filled under the 16 August 2016 guidelines; the 3 September 2024 guidelines did not apply retrospectively.

The prayer for recalculation of vacancies, preparation of a supplementary panel, and posting as DRM was rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications were closed, and there was no order as to costs.