Upgradation involving selection elements and cadre restructuring constitutes promotion, attracting the rule of reservation.

The applicants, working in Pay Matrix Level-7 in various departments of the Western Railway, challenged the legality of select/suitability lists issued in 2023 for upgradation to Level-8

This upgradation was initiated under Railway Board policy RBE No. 155/2022, which provided for the upgradation of 50% of posts from Level-7 to Level-8

Subsequent clarifications by the Railway Board on 01.12.2022 and 14.07.2023 stipulated that while functional responsibilities remained unchanged, the process would involve a "non-selection" method (seniority-cum-suitability) and that reservation rules would apply

The applicants contended that the process was "upgradation simpliciter" aimed at removing stagnation and, since there was no change in duties or designation, reservation could not be applied

Conversely, the respondents argued the process constituted "promotion" via cadre restructuring, as it was limited to a percentage of the cadre and required "matching savings" (surrendering lower-level posts to create higher-level ones)

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

2. Whether the application of reservation in the said process is legally sustainable and whether the impugned policy and clarifications are tenable?

3. Whether the impugned suitability/select lists suffer from any illegality warranting interference?

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles from Union of India v. Pushpa Rani & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 242, which held that reservation is applicable to cadre restructuring where additional posts are created and filled by promotion based on eligibility and suitability

It further relied on BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 510, which established that if advancement to a higher pay scale involves selection elements (even if only screening for records) or is restricted to a percentage of posts, it constitutes promotion in a wider sense and attracts reservation

The Tribunal also cited the three-judge bench decision in Rama Nand & Ors. 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 found that the scheme was not an "en masse" upgradation but was restricted to 50% of the cadre, making advancement contingent on vacancy availability—a characteristic of promotion

It noted that the process required a five-year residency period, vigilance clearance, and scrutiny of service records, which introduced a selection element beyond mere time-bound financial upgradation like MACP

The Tribunal emphasized that the "matching savings" requirement, where Level-6 and Level-7 posts were surrendered to create Level-8 posts, clearly indicated a cadre restructuring exercise

Applying the Pushpa Rani and BSNL precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that since the restructuring resulted in the creation of higher-grade posts filled via a suitability process, it was a promotion rather than upgradation simpliciter

Consequently, the Railway Board’s clarification dated 14.07.2023, which applied reservation to such partial cadre upgradations, was held to be legally valid

It held that the application of reservation in the selection process is legally valid and consistent with Supreme Court rulings

The Tribunal dismissed all the Original Applications, vacated the previously granted interim relief, and upheld the impugned suitability/select lists

No order was made as to costs