Reservation rules apply to cadre restructuring involving additional posts, but not to mere grade upgradation for stagnation.

The applicant, a Technician-I Mechanical at the Diesel Shed in Jodhpur, challenged the impugned order dated 09.01.2015 [Annexure-A/1].

This order granted promotion and upgradation to five private respondents (Respondents 4 to 8) against SC/ST reservation points during a cadre restructuring exercise conducted under RBE No. 102/2013 and RBE No. 161/2009.

The applicant contended that the rule of reservation is inapplicable to cadre restructuring where no additional posts are created.

The applicant’s prior representation regarding this grievance remained unaddressed by the railway administration.

1. Whether the rule of reservation applies to the promotion/upgradation of employees during the cadre restructuring process in the present circumstances.

2. Whether the specific restructuring in question involved the creation of additional posts or merely the regrading of existing posts to address stagnation.

The Tribunal relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC 242 and BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 510.

These precedents clarify that reservation applies to restructuring if it results in the creation of additional posts to be filled by eligible employees, but it does not apply if existing posts are simply placed in a higher grade to provide relief against stagnation without creating new vacancies.

The Tribunal also referenced the guidelines in Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachmi Narain Gupta & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 629/2022) regarding reservation in promotions.

The Tribunal found that the application of reservation depends entirely on whether "additional posts" were created during the restructuring.

However, the court noted that neither the applicant nor the respondents provided full particulars or evidence regarding the nature of the posts created or upgraded.

Since the respondents had failed to respond to the applicant’s initial representation, the administrative authorities had not yet formally evaluated the legality of applying reservation in this specific instance against the standards set in Pushpa Rani and Santhakumari Velusamy.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it could not decide the controversy on merits without a factual determination by the department.

The respondents are ordered to complete this exercise within six months.

The applicant is granted liberty to file a fresh application if dissatisfied with the resulting order.