Inter-se seniority in the feeder grade must be maintained in the seniority list of the promotional post.

The Applicant, a Senior Passenger Train Manager (ST category) in the Eastern Railway, challenged a reasoned order dated 04.07.2024 which rejected his claim for seniority rectification.

In a provisional seniority list dated 12.02.2024, the Applicant was placed at Sl. No. 28.

However, in a vacancy list dated 27.12.2023 and a subsequent promotion order dated 17.04.2024, his seniority was downgraded to positions 39 and 37, respectively.

The Respondents contended that the promotion panel was based on an older seniority list from 28.02.2023, rather than the 2024 list.

Due to this lower seniority placement in the promotion panel, the Applicant was posted to Rampurhat instead of his preferred location, Howrah.

The Applicant sought the setting aside of the speaking order and rectification of his seniority in Level-6.

1. Whether the Respondents erred in determining the Applicant’s seniority position in the promotion panel and subsequent promotion order by failing to account for retirements and inter-se seniority.

2. Whether the placement of SC candidates above the Applicant (an ST candidate) in the promotion panel, regardless of his higher inter-se seniority, was legally sustainable for determining post-promotional postings.

The court primarily functioned under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the legal principle that inter-se seniority in a feeder grade must be maintained when preparing promotion panels, and that such seniority should govern administrative decisions like postings when based on merit-cum-seniority.

The court further relied on the principle that provisional panels prepared for promotion cannot override established inter-se seniority to the detriment of a senior employee.

The Tribunal examined multiple seniority and vacancy lists from 2023 and 2024.

It found that in the February 2023 seniority list, the Applicant was at Sl. No. 38, but due to the retirement of eight seniors by December 2023, his effective seniority had risen to 30.

While drafting the promotion panel on 27.12.2023, the Respondents grouped 29 UR candidates, followed by 9 SC candidates, and then 5 ST candidates.

The Tribunal observed that the Respondents wrongly placed the SC candidates above the Applicant, even though the Applicant was senior to all 9 SC candidates in the feeder grade.

Although the Respondents claimed the 27.12.2023 list was merely a "provisional panel" and not a seniority list, they erroneously used it as a seniority list to assign postings, resulting in the Applicant being denied a posting at Howrah.

The Tribunal noted that the seniority list dated 12.02.2024 correctly reflected the Applicant at Sl. No. 28, confirming that the Respondents' earlier calculation for promotion purposes was flawed.

It held that the Applicant’s seniority in the promotional post (Senior Train Manager) must be fixed according to his correct inter-se seniority as reflected in the list dated 12.02.2024.

The Respondents were directed to ensure that the Applicant’s position in any provisional or final seniority list for the promotional grade reflects this correct position vis-à-vis his colleagues promoted on the same date.

The Tribunal ordered these corrections to be implemented within 60 days.

No mandatory order was passed regarding the Howrah posting as it was not specifically prayed for in the relief clause, though the Tribunal expressed the expectation that the Respondents would provide due relief.