Judgment Elipe Dharma Rao 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order, dated 27.09.2010, made in O.A.No.598 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the original application, which was filed by the second respondent herein against the order rejecting his representation seeking revision of seniority, passed by the second petitioner herein, dated 18.05.2009, was allowed and the respondents therein, who are the petitioners herein, were directed to assign the seniority of the applicant as per Paragraph 303 of Indian Railway Establishment Manuel and RBE No.107/94 (Supplementary Circular No.34) based on the marks obtained in the examination conducted at the end of the training. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the post of Goods Guard carrying the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 is a safety category post and the mode of filling up of the said post is prescribed in Paragraph 124 (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1 as amended by Advance Correction Slip No.47, which reads as follows:- i. 60% by general selection from amongst serving regular employees with a minimum of three years service working in Grade(s)Rs.3050-4590-3200-4900/4000-6000 in the categories of Train Clerk/Senior Train Clerk, Commercial Clerk/Senior Commercial Clerk, Ticket Collector/Senior Ticket Collector, Switchmen, Assistant Guard/Senior Assistant Guard and Yard staff. ii. 15% by LDCE plus shortfall if any against (i) above, from amongst regular, non-ministerial Group "C" employees with a minimum of 3 years service, working in Grade(s) Rs.3050-4590-3200-4900/4000-6000 upto 40 years of age (45 years in the case of SC/ST) and having the qualification of graduation and iii. 25% by direct recruitment quota through Railway Recruitment Board plus shortfall if any against (ii) above and having the qualification of graduation. 3. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Railway Board, vide their letter No.E(NG)-96/PM2/3, dated 04.02.1999, added the words, "Individual quotas for each of these categories being fixed by the Zonal Railways" under sub paragraph (1)(i) of Paragraph 124 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1. It is the further case of the petitioners that in accordance with the instructions contained in Railway Board's letter dated 04.02.1999, the first petitioner, in consultation with both the Organised Labour, has fixed the following individual quota in respect of each category and the same was communicated by letter, dated 26.10.1999 and the individual quota earmarked for each category is as under:- 4. According to the petitioners, the Chief Personnel Officer's letter, dated 26.10.1999, stipulates that the panel formed will be one for the notified vacancies amalgamating all the qualified personnel belonging to different categories restricted to the percentage assigned to each group; that it will be based on the length of non-fortuitous service in the grade and the person in the higher grade being senior to the one in the lower grade; and that in case of adequate number of employees from the specified categories are not qualifying, the shortage will be made good from among the excess staff qualified from other categories on the basis of integrated seniority. 5. It is also the case of the petitioners that in the above background, they have initiated a selection for the post of Goods Guard in the Scale of Pay of Rs.4500-7000 in order to fill up 18 vacancies with the break-up of Scheduled Caste-Nil; Scheduled Tribe-3 and Unreserved-15 against 60% promotional quota by issuing Notification, dated 27.09.2006. It is the further case of the petitioners that the post of Goods Guard against 60% promotional quota is filled up by way of calling volunteers from various categories indicated in Paragraph 124 (1) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1 and in response to the same, 159 employees volunteered from various categories to appear for the selection and all of them were initially alerted for the selection by letter dated 01.12.2006 and later advised to attend the written examination on 16.12.2006. It is also the case of the petitioners that among 159 employees, 141 had appeared in the written examination and the remaining 18 employees did not turn for the written examination and out of 141 employees, 38 employees including the second respondent herein secured the requisite qualifying marks in the written examination. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that in terms of the Railway Board's letter, dated 07.08.2003, the selection for the post of Goods Guard in the scale of Pay of Rs.4500-7000 against 60% promotional quota consists of written test only, followed by drawal of panel by the Selection Committee, based on the written test marks and the marks awarded for records of service, and the said panel has to be necessarily drawn in strict adherence to the percentage prescribed for each category in terms of the instructions contained vide Railway Board's letter dated 04.02.1999. 7. 7. Be that as it may. It is the case of the second respondent, who joined Southern Railways in Madurai Division as Clerk in 1992 and then as Trains Clerk in Traffic Department, that he has applied for the post of Goods Guard, participated in the written examination and scored 82.5% marks, based on which, he was subjected to medical examination and then he was sent for training from 09.04.2007 to 30.05.2007 and in the meantime, he participated in the written examination conducted by the Board on 28.05.2007 and 30.05.2007 and secured 92.5% marks. 8. It is the grievance of the second respondent that as he has secured high marks and became No.1 in the Training, he should rank above all other candidates, who have undergone training along with him, as per paragraph 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1, whereas his seniority was fixed at the fifth place in the panel. According to the second respondent, when he made a representation, dated 21.04.2009 to the second petitioner to rectify the said error, it was replied, as per order dated 18.05.2009, that since he was selected for the post of Goods Guard against 60% promotional quota, the panel seniority would alone be maintained and hence, the seniority assigned is in order and requires no revision. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the second petitioner, the second respondent has filed O.A.No.598 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the second petitioner, the second respondent has filed O.A.No.598 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. The petitioners herein, resisted the case before the Tribunal, by filing a reply affidavit stating that before promoting the candidates to the post of Goods Guard, one of the Organised Labour represented that the formation of the panel was not in accordance with the instructions contained in the third respondent's /third petitioner's letter dated 26.10.1999, and hence, they have proposed to amend the panel and before that, they have issued show cause notices to fifteen persons, who were selected by the Selection Committee, to send their objections with regard to the redrawal of the panel and in that process, they have rejected the representation sent by the applicant/second respondent herein on the ground that he was selected for the post of Goods Guard against 60% promotional quota and the panel seniority would alone be maintained and hence, the seniority assigned is in order and requires no revision and on that ground, the Railway Board has requested the Tribunal to dismiss the original application. 10. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the original application by setting aside the order of rejection, rejecting the request of the second respondent herein seeking revision of seniority and directed the Railway Board to assign seniority of the applicant/second respondent herein, as per paragraph 303 of Indian Railway Establishment Manuel and RBE No.107/94 (Supplementary Circular No.34) based on the marks obtained in the examination conducted at the end of the training. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6. 12. It is seen from the perusal of the records that the present writ petition has been filed by the Railway Board aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Railway Board in rejecting the representation of the applicant/second respondent to fix the seniority as per the merit list prepared after undergoing training selection for the post of Goods Guard. 13. 13. It is also seen from the perusal of the materials that the recruitment for the post of Goods Guard is from various sources, viz., (i)Assistant Guard/Senior Assistant Guard in the pay scale of Rs,.3050-4590/Rs.4000-6000; (ii)Train Clerks/Senior Train Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/Rs.4000-6000; (iii)Shunting Master/ Shunting Jamedar/Pointsman/Leverman/Cabinman/Gatekeeper in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/Rs.4000-6000; (iv)Commercial Clerk/ Senior Commercial Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3200-4900/Rs.4000-6000; and (v)Ticket Collectors/Senior Ticket Collectors in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/Rs.4000-6000. As per the Railway Board's Circular, dated 27.09.2006, some conditions have been imposed against the persons, who are selected, and one such condition is that they should not seek repatriation to their parent cadre at the time of posting or passing requisite training with a further direction that those employees, who are not willing to accept these conditions, need not apply. 14. As stated above, the second respondent, who was appointed in the year 1992 as a Clerk, while holding the post of Senior Assistant, appeared for the written examination conducted on 16.12.2006, based on which, he was sent for training on 09.04.2007 up to 30.05.2007 and in the meantime, he has participated in the written test conducted on 28.05.2007 and scored 92.5%, based on which, the merit list was prepared on 30.05.2007. As per the abovesaid merit list, when the second respondent was fixed at Sl.No.5, he made a representation on 21.04.2009 to the Board for consideration as per Paragraph 303 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1 read with Railway Board's letter dated 19.03.1993 to fix his seniority in the first place on the basis of the results of the written examination, as he scored 92.5%. But, the said representation was rejected by the second petitioner as per communication, dated 18.05.2009 viewing the recruitment of the second respondent as the one selected against promotional quota, to which, the preparation of seniority as per Paragraph 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1 is not applicable. 15. Not satisfied with the consideration of the representation of the employee/second respondent herein by the Railway Board, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application, which was filed against the refusal of the representation sent by the applicant seeking revision of seniority. Now the present writ petition is filed against the aforesaid original application. 16. 15. Not satisfied with the consideration of the representation of the employee/second respondent herein by the Railway Board, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application, which was filed against the refusal of the representation sent by the applicant seeking revision of seniority. Now the present writ petition is filed against the aforesaid original application. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Department have reiterated the grounds of attack made in the original application by stating that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is without application of mind and without deciding the issue as to whether the recruitment was conducted as contemplated under paragraph 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1, by the Railway Recruitment Board. 17. A reading of Paragraph 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1, makes it abundantly clear that the seniority of candidates recruited through Railway Service Commission or by any other recruiting authority should be determined as under- "Candidates who are sent for initial training to training schools will rank in seniority in the relevant grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working posts." Therefore, in our considered opinion, the facts and circumstances of the present case are very much attracted by the aforesaid paragraph, viz., Paragraph 303(a) of the Rules Regulating Seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Servants. 18. It is also seen from the perusal of the records that before selection, the second respondent along with others in the five categories referred to above, have participated in the first written examination conducted on 16.12.2006 and after satisfying with the marks scored in the said examination, the Selection Committee recommended the names of 15 persons including the second respondent for empanelment to the post of Goods Guard and the selection proceedings were approved by the Divisional Manager on 07.03.2007. Accordingly, the selected candidates were sent for the training, which was conducted from 09.04.2007 to 30.05.2007. After completion of the training, once again a written examination was conducted on 28.05.2007, in which, the second respondent secured 92.5% marks. On the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, the merit list was prepared. Accordingly, the selected candidates were sent for the training, which was conducted from 09.04.2007 to 30.05.2007. After completion of the training, once again a written examination was conducted on 28.05.2007, in which, the second respondent secured 92.5% marks. On the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, the merit list was prepared. Thereafter, the Board, instead of making appointment as per merit and seniority, have resorted to misinterpret the rules by amending the seniority in view of the fact that there are some discrepancies in the said panel and accordingly, issued show cause notices, dated 04.07.2007, to the 15 selected candidates including the second respondent, for which, they have submitted their respective representations, and the same were examined and disposed of vide letter dated 18.07.2007, against which, the original application filed by the second respondent was allowed and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed and in our considered opinion, the order passed by the Tribunal requires no interference, in view of the following reasons. 19. Paragraphs 303 and 320 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1, on which, the petitioners placed reliance, had applicability on different occasions while preparing the seniority list. Paragraph 303 is applicable for fixing the seniority of candidates, who are recruited through the Railway Service Commission or any other recruiting authority and sent for initial training to training schools and after completion of the training, they have to attend the written examination and on the basis of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period, their seniority will be fixed. On the other hand, Paragraph 320 is applicable to prepare the relative seniority of employees in an intermediate grade belonging to different seniority units appearing for a selection/non selection post in the higher grade. 20. As we have seen from the materials available on records that it is a case of selection of candidates by the Recruitment Authority, as contemplated under Paragraph 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Volume 1, we are satisfied that the seniority has to be fixed as per the merit list prepared after conducting written examination and successfully completing the training by the empanelled candidates. Volume 1, we are satisfied that the seniority has to be fixed as per the merit list prepared after conducting written examination and successfully completing the training by the empanelled candidates. This aspect of consideration of Paragraphs 303 and 320 is missed by the Chief Personnel Officer, who, in his order, while rejecting the representation of the second respondent, has held that the second respondent was selected against 60% promotional quota, which consideration is totally misconceived and amounts to non application of mind. When the civil rights of the employees of the Railways are involved, the authorities are expected to pay proper attention and apply their mind while arriving at such conclusions. 21. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to take a different view from the one taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that the second respondent is entitled for fixation of his seniority based on the merit list prepared on the basis of the result of the written examination conducted and after successfully completing the training, from 09.04.2007 to 30.05.2007, as the second respondent stood on the basis of the marks scored, viz., 82% and 92.5%, in the two examinations held by the Railway Board. 22. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.