Exclusion of a suitable candidate from a promotion panel despite available vacancies and higher merit is arbitrary.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Trackman in 1987, rose to the post of Cabinman in 1999

Upon being declared surplus, he was redeployed as a Pointsman (Kantawala) in 2009 and assigned bottom seniority in accordance with Railway Board policy

In 2011, the respondents issued a notification for 14 vacancies (12 Unreserved, 1 SC, 1 ST) for the post of Shunting Master Grade-II

The applicant passed the written examination, ranking 14th among 16 successful candidates

However, the final panel dated 25.11.2011 included only 13 names, excluding the applicant and leaving one vacancy unfilled

The applicant alleged that his exclusion was arbitrary, as he was found suitable by the Selection Committee and had scored higher marks (67.5%) than at least one selected unreserved candidate, Suresh Chandra Yadav (64.5%)

The respondents contended that the selection was based on seniority-cum-merit and the applicant, being the junior-most, was not found suitable for empanelment against the limited vacancies

1. Whether the exclusion of the applicant from the final promotion panel was arbitrary and illegal given that he was found suitable and a vacancy remained unfilled

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion based on his performance in the selection process notwithstanding his bottom seniority in the feeder cadre

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment

Railway Board’s policy dated 25.05.2004 regarding the assignment of bottom seniority to surplus employees upon redeployment

The "catch-up" rule and the criteria for determining representation in promotions as established in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India

Principles from Shyam Bahadur v. Union of India, which distinguish between merit-based and seniority-cum-fitness promotions for the purpose of adjusting reserved category candidates against general vacancies

The Tribunal scrutinized the original selection records and found that the Selection Committee had explicitly marked the applicant as "suitable"

It noted that while 14 vacancies were notified, the respondents only empanelled 13 candidates, leaving one Unreserved (UR) vacancy vacant

The Tribunal observed a discrepancy in the respondents' logic: although they claimed the selection followed "seniority-cum-merit," the applicant had secured 67.5% marks, higher than a selected UR candidate who secured 64.5%

The Tribunal determined that since the applicant was found suitable and a vacancy existed, his exclusion solely on the grounds of being the "junior-most" was unjustified

While the Tribunal declined to quash the entire 2011 panel due to the significant passage of time and the fact that other candidates had already retired or continued in service, it found the applicant's individual claim for promotion to the vacant slot to be valid

The Tribunal partially allowed the Original Application, directing the respondents to grant the applicant notional promotion to the post of Shunting Master Grade-II from the date his counterparts in the 25.11.2011 panel were promoted

The respondents were ordered to revise the applicant’s Pension Payment Order (PPO) if he had already retired and to complete the entire exercise within three months

No costs were awarded