Upgradation involving cadre restructuring and selection elements constitutes promotion, attracting mandatory reservation policies.

The applicants, working as Chief Office Superintendents and Senior Section Engineers in Pay Matrix Level-7, challenged the legality of select/suitability lists issued in 2023.

These lists were prepared pursuant to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 155/2022, which provided for the upgradation of 50% of posts from Level-7 to Level-8.

A subsequent clarification dated 01.12.2022 stipulated that while functional responsibilities remained unchanged, the process would be treated as "non-selection" (based on seniority and record scrutiny) and that reservation rules would apply.

The applicants contended that since there was no change in duties or designations, the exercise was "upgradation simpliciter" aimed at removing stagnation, which should not attract reservation.

Conversely, the respondents argued the scheme was a cadre restructuring involving "matching savings" (surrendering lower posts to create higher ones), thereby constituting "promotion".

1. Whether the upgradation from Pay Matrix Level-7 to Level-8 under RBE No. 155/2022 constitutes "upgradation simpliciter" or "promotion"

2. Whether the application of the reservation policy in the said process is legally sustainable

3. Whether the impugned suitability/select lists suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness

The court primarily relied on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding equality in public employment.

Union of India v. Pushpa Rani (2008) 9 SCC 242, which held that cadre restructuring resulting in additional posts to be filled by promotion based on suitability attracts reservation.

BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy (2011) 9 SCC 510, establishing that if advancement to a higher pay scale involves selection elements or is restricted to a percentage of posts rather than the whole cadre, it constitutes promotion.

Rama Nand v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2020) 9 SCC 208, affirming that reorganization involving selection criteria and higher pay scales is promotional in nature.

The Tribunal observed that RBE No. 155/2022 was not an "en masse" upgradation but was restricted to 50% of the cadre strength, making placement contingent upon vacancy availability.

The process involved specific eligibility criteria, including a minimum residency period, vigilance clearance, and scrutiny of service records, which introduced an element of "suitability" akin to promotion.

The Tribunal emphasized the "matching savings" clause, noting that the respondents surrendered posts in Level-6 and Level-7 to create new posts in Level-8; per Pushpa Rani, such restructuring transcends mere financial upgradation.

The Bench distinguished the applicants' reliance on O.A. No. 327/2023 (Mumbai Bench), noting that the earlier decision failed to consider the Railway Board’s July 2023 clarification and the 3-Judge Bench ratio in Rama Nand.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the process, despite the nomenclature of "upgradation," was substantively a promotion.

It ruled that the application of reservation is legally valid and in accordance with established Supreme Court precedents.

The Original Applications were dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the interim relief previously granted was vacated.

No order as to costs was made.