Service rendered in a supernumerary post counts towards seniority for departmental promotion.

The applicant, appointed as a Group-D Chowkidar on January 19, 2009, challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist

Respondent No. 3 was originally appointed as a Trackman on May 14, 2008, but was later medically de-categorized and placed in a supernumerary post as a Peon from 2016 until her regularization in 2021

In December 2021, the Railways invited applications for eight posts of Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist under a 33 1/3% departmental quota, where selection was based on a written test, service records, and seniority

Following the publication of the inter-se seniority list, the applicant represented that Respondent No. 3's seniority should be fixed at the bottom of the list because she had served in a supernumerary post following medical de-categorization

The official respondents rejected this, maintaining Respondent No. 3’s seniority from her initial 2008 appointment. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 was empanelled while the applicant, ranking 6th for only five unreserved vacancies, was excluded

1. Whether the period of service rendered by a medically de-categorized employee in a supernumerary post should be excluded from the calculation of seniority for departmental promotion

2. Whether the protection of Respondent No. 3’s seniority from her initial date of appointment (May 14, 2008) was legally valid

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 122 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), which defines supernumerary posts as permanent posts created under special circumstances for operation over a limited period

The Rule establishes that there can be no discrimination in seniority positions between employees working in permanent posts and those in supernumerary posts

The Tribunal observed that Respondent No. 3 was appointed earlier (2008) than the applicant (2009), establishing her seniority from inception

The applicant’s contention—that the period between December 6, 2016, and August 6, 2021, spent by Respondent No. 3 in a supernumerary post should be excluded—was found to be unsupported by any statutory rule or instruction

Referring to Rule 122 of the IREC, the Tribunal reasoned that since supernumerary posts are treated as permanent posts for their duration, service rendered therein carries the same weightage for seniority as regular service

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in a previous interim proceeding (O.A. No. 368/2021), it was already established that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to participate in the selection process with protected seniority

Because the seniority was correctly protected, Respondent No. 3 remained senior to the applicant, and the applicant’s failure to secure a spot was due to his lower rank in the integrated seniority list relative to available vacancies

The court found no illegality in the respondents' actions and dismissed the Original Application as misconceived

No order was made as to costs