For Group B promotions, empanelment follows prescribed grading and seniority, not aggregate marks.

The applicants challenged the Southern Railway panel dated 9 September 2016 for promotion to Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) under the 70% quota, and the order rejecting their representation.

They asserted that the selection was a general selection and that empanelment should follow comparative merit; although they had higher aggregate marks than the private respondents, they were excluded from the panel

The Railway authorities maintained that the selection was governed by IREM Paras 204.8 and 204.9, under which candidates were graded and seniority was maintained within each grade.

During the proceedings, Applicant 1 died after retirement; Applicant 2 was subsequently promoted, and Applicant 3 was promoted and later retired

Whether the APO selection under the 70% quota required empanelment strictly by aggregate merit, or instead by the grading and seniority criteria in IREM Paras 204.8 and 204.9

Whether the cited Supreme Court decisions and Railway Board instructions concerning merit-based general selections displaced those IREM criteria for this Group ‘B’ selection

The Tribunal applied IREM Para 203.8, governing selection to Group ‘B’ APO posts; Para 203.5, providing for integrated seniority where employees from different streams are eligible; and Paras 204.8–204.9, which grade successful candidates as “Outstanding” or “Good” and provide for empanelment by grade, maintaining inter-se seniority within each grade

It held that IREM Para 219, governing promotion of non-gazetted Group ‘C’ staff, did not govern this Group ‘B’ selection

The applicants relied on *M. Ramjayaram v. General Manager, South Central Railway* and *Union of India (Railway Board) v. Subhash Chand Joshi*, as well as Railway Board Letter No. E(NG)I-2008/PM7/4 SLP dated 19 June 2009 (RBE No. 113/2009)

The Tribunal distinguished those authorities and followed the Principal Bench’s decision in *Mrs. Mamta Sareen v. Union of India*, OA No. 2167/2010, which it treated as addressing the APO selection scheme and the role of seniority within the “Good” grade

The Tribunal treated the selection as a Group ‘B’ selection governed by Section ‘A’ of Chapter II of the IREM, rather than as a selection governed by Para 219

It read Paras 204.8–204.9 as making the prescribed grading and seniority—not comparative aggregate marks alone—the basis for arranging candidates on the panel.

As no candidate obtained the “Outstanding” grade, the candidates in the “Good” grade were arranged by the applicable seniority criterion; the applicants’ higher marks therefore did not establish a right to empanelment

The Tribunal also distinguished the authorities cited by the applicants and considered that they did not displace the rules applicable to this APO selection

It additionally referred to the applicants’ participation in the selection without challenging its governing conditions, applying the principle of estoppel

The OA was held to have abated as against Applicant 1 following his death; it was dismissed as against Applicants 2 and 3, with no order as to costs.