JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The challenge is against Exhibit P1 order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claim for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme with effect from 03.01.2006, i.e. on completion of 12 years from the date of appointment of the petitioner as Commercial Clerk, as well as the claim to fix seniority in the said post over and above the party respondents stands declined. 2. The petitioner is stated as an outstanding sports person, who got employment as a Peon Group 'D' in the Chennai Division of Southern Railways and she commenced her service way back on 18.11.1987. It is stated that the Railways were gracious enough to reckon the credentials of the persons like the petitioner, who were having achievements in the sports field, and accordingly, based on the merit of the petitioner as an outstanding person, she was given an 'out of turn' promotion as 'Junior Clerk' in the Trivandrum division. But, since there was no vacancy of Junior Clerk in Trivandrum Division, the petitioner was accommodated as 'Commercial Clerk' in the scale of pay of Rs.975-1540 and was sent for training, which was stated as mandatory for assuming higher responsibilities, on 03.01.1994. On completion of the training, she came to be appointed as Commercial Clerk with effect from 15.3.1994. The respondents 3 and 4, who came to be promoted to the posts of 'Junior Clerk', from 'Group D' post, while serving in the Trivandrum division, were also sent for training on 03.01.1994 and they were appointed as Commercial Clerks on 15.03.1994 itself. 3. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner put up a claim for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years service from 03.01.1994, also claiming seniority over the respondents 3 and 4. 3. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner put up a claim for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years service from 03.01.1994, also claiming seniority over the respondents 3 and 4. This was rejected by the Department as per Annexure A1, which made the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with the following prayers: “(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and quash the same; (ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted the benefit of first level financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay band of Rs.5200-20,200/- with a grade pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 03.01.2006; (iii) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant benefit of first level financial up-gradation in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- in the grade pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f 03.01.06 and direct further to grant all consequential benefits arising there from; (iv) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be placed above the respondents 3, 4 and 5 in the seniority list of Commercial Clerks and direct further to grant the consequential benefits including the benefit of promotion on par with and in preference to the respondents 3 to 5 and direct further to grant all consequential benefits including pay and allowances arising there from; (v) Award costs of and incidental to this Application; (vi) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The main contention put up by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the appointment given to the petitioner as Junior Clerk/Commercial Clerk, though was described as an 'out of turn' promotion, it was liable to be reckoned as 'Direct Recruitment' and if so, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of ACP on completion of 12 years of service reckoning the said period from 03.01.1994. As such, denial of the same as per Annexure A1 was sought to be intercepted. It was also pointed out that, though the party respondents and the petitioner were sent for training on the very same day and were appointed thereafter in the posts of Commercial Clerk on 15.03.1994 itself, the petitioner's case was given the fixation on an earlier date in terms of the Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG) 1/90/IC/1 dated 15.11.1991. It was also pointed out that, though the party respondents and the petitioner were sent for training on the very same day and were appointed thereafter in the posts of Commercial Clerk on 15.03.1994 itself, the petitioner's case was given the fixation on an earlier date in terms of the Railway Board's Letter No. E(NG) 1/90/IC/1 dated 15.11.1991. It was accordingly, that Annexure A2 was issued by the Railways on 18/20 August 2008, giving the fixation with effect from 03.01.1994, i.e. by advancing the same from 15.03.1994 in the higher pay scale attached to the promoted post of Commercial Clerk. In the case of the party respondents, no such benefit was given, as the said benefit given to the petitioner was by virtue of the eligibility as an outstanding sports person. Despite the issuance of notice, the party respondents did not turn up before the Tribunal. Based on the contention raised by the Railways, as reflected from Exhibit P2 reply statement, the Tribunal held that the claim to treat the appointment given as Commercial Clerk as 'Direct Recruitment' was not liable to be entertained, as it was nothing other than promotion, though on 'out of turn' basis. Similarly, in respect of the claim for seniority, the Tribunal held in Exhibit P1 that, no material was produced by the applicant to have the issue decided with certainty, that she was liable to be placed over and above the party respondents. The claim for seniority was also repelled accordingly, based on the stand taken by the Department as reflected from Exhibit P3 reply statement. 5. Heard Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.C.S. Dias, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways at length. 6. Regarding the first question, whether the petitioner's appointment could be considered as a Direct Recruitment, the learned counsel sought to rely on the 'Master Circular' issued by the Railways on Recruitment of Sports persons under the Sports Quota. Specific reference is made to paragraph 8(e)which reads as follows: “8(e). 6. Regarding the first question, whether the petitioner's appointment could be considered as a Direct Recruitment, the learned counsel sought to rely on the 'Master Circular' issued by the Railways on Recruitment of Sports persons under the Sports Quota. Specific reference is made to paragraph 8(e)which reads as follows: “8(e). Out of Turn Promotion: Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, have also decided that out of turn promotion may be given to the truly outstanding performance of sportspersons by the General Managers on this following criteria: Group 'C' Sportspersons who: (a) represented the country in International meets; or (b) represented Railways in the National meets on three occasions and acquitted themselves creditably; (c) the sportspersons should have been put in three years' service in the existing Grade, where relaxation of this limit is required, the case is to be referred to the Railway Board; (d) No sportsperson should ordinarily be given more than one out of turn promotion in the course of his/her career; and (e) as far as possible, the out of turn promotion should be to a Grade where there is a direct recruitment quota and his promotion should be counted against this direct recruitment quota. The General Manager will, however, have discretion to relax this provision in special cases. Note These orders will remain in force up to 31.3.1991.” 7. With reference to the above clause, the learned counsel submits that the 'out of turn' promotion given to the petitioner was to be adjusted against the 'Direct Recruitment quota'. Hence it was nothing other than 'Direct Recruitment'; by virtue of which she was eligible to have the benefit of ACP on completion of 12 years from the relevant date, submits the learned counsel. 8. According to this Court, the above clause cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in the context under which it is provided. Paragraph 8 of the Master Circular deals with various incentives to sportspersons for outstanding performance. It is under the said paragraph, that different circumstances have been dealt with under Clauses (a) to (g). 8. According to this Court, the above clause cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in the context under which it is provided. Paragraph 8 of the Master Circular deals with various incentives to sportspersons for outstanding performance. It is under the said paragraph, that different circumstances have been dealt with under Clauses (a) to (g). Clause (a) deals with higher initial fixation of pay at the time of the initial recruitment, Clause (b) deals with granting of intermediate grade in the given circumstances, Clause (c) deals with the increments to be given for excellence at the national level and also for excellence at the international level, Clause (d) deals with incentives to Coaches and Clause (e) deals with 'out of turn' promotions, subject to the criteria mentioned as sub clauses (a) to (e) under the heading Group 'C' (which stands already extracted in paragraph 6 of this judgment). Sub clause (d) says that no sportspersons should ordinarily be given more than one out of turn promotion in the course of his/her career and Sub Clause (e) says that as far as possible, the out of turn promotion should be to a Grade where there is a 'Direct Recruitment Quota' and his promotion should be counted against this Direct Recruitment Quota, of course, giving the power to the General Manager to relax the provision in special cases. Clause (f) of paragraph 8 of the Master Circular draws an exemption with regard to Sub Clause (d) mentioned above, whereby it is stipulated that a second out of turn promotion could also be recommended in the case of really outstanding and deserving persons, which has to be considered and granted only at Railway Board's level. 9. On reading the entire provisions as above, it is clear that the 'out of turn promotion' given to the petitioner and the persons similarly situated, is only one of the 'incentives' given to the outstanding sports person. The out of turn promotion is intended only for a person who is already in the stream; otherwise it would only come as a 'Direct Recruitment', with fixation of pay at appropriate level. The scope of adjustment of the appointment against Direct Recruitment Quota, as dealt with under Sub Clause (e) is relevant to be noted. The said stipulation obviously is with a specific purpose. The scope of adjustment of the appointment against Direct Recruitment Quota, as dealt with under Sub Clause (e) is relevant to be noted. The said stipulation obviously is with a specific purpose. The appointment to the post in question is generally by way of Promotion and Direct Recruitment in the ratio of 1:2, as put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect from the part of the respondents as well. Since it is an 'out of turn' promotion, when such benefit is given to a person, quite naturally the others who are awaiting promotion in the natural line will be adversely affected, more so, because of possible reduction of the vacancies/avenue/posts to which normal promotion could be aspired. It is in the said circumstance, that provision is made as per the above clause, that as far as possible, the 'out of turn' promotion has to be given where there is a Direct Recruitment Quota. On such an event, it is further stipulated that, it should be set off against the vacancies available in the Direct Recruitment Quota. This means, when an 'out of turn promotion' is given, the vacancy which otherwise may be available to the Direct Recruitment Quota will stand reduced and as such, the others who are normally standing in the queue aspiring for promotion in the normal line within their quota as per the Rules will not be adversely affected. To put it more clear, the number of vacancies in the 'Promotion Quota' will not get reduced and the adverse consequence can only be against the 'Direct Recruitment Quota'. In other words, the above stipulation will not tilt the balance, to contend that the said adjustment against the Direct Recruitment Quota, will automatically convert the nature of appointment from Promotion to Direct Recruitment. This being the position, we hold that the appointment given to the petitioner is nothing other than 'Promotion'. The word 'Promotion' is quite discernible from the relevant order, as repeatedly used in various paragraphs of Annexure R2, produced along with I.A. No.1672/2016. If it is by 'Promotion', then the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the first ACP on completion of 12 years and the claim is unfounded. The word 'Promotion' is quite discernible from the relevant order, as repeatedly used in various paragraphs of Annexure R2, produced along with I.A. No.1672/2016. If it is by 'Promotion', then the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the first ACP on completion of 12 years and the claim is unfounded. For those reasons, we find that interference declared by the Tribunal in this regard as per Exhibit P1 does not warrant any interference. The point stands answered in favour of the Railways. 10. There is yet another claim for the petitioner, to the effect that her seniority has to be reckoned over and above the party respondents. It is pointed out that, both the petitioner and the party respondents were sent for training on the very same day, ie. on 03.01.1994 and was subsequently appointed on completion of the training with effect from 15.03.1994. The petitioner also points out that on completion of the training, she got 142 marks, which is more than the marks secured by the third respondent, who has got only 141 marks. Under such circumstance, the seniority of the petitioner could not have been pushed down, to be below the said person and hence the grievance. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the observation of the Tribunal that 'no sufficient material was produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion' is not correct and that the factual position is discernible from Annexure A2 itself. In Annexure A2, it is clearly stated that, considering the credentials of the petitioner in terms of the Board's letter No.E(NG)1/90/IC/1 dated 15.11.1991, the training period undergone by the petitioner from 03.01.1994 to 15.03.1994 has been reckoned as part of duty in the higher/promoted post and pay fixation has been effected accordingly, making the petitioner eligible to have drawn the salary in the higher scale of pay of 975-1540 with effect from 03.01.1994. Such an exercise has not been pursued in the case of the party respondents herein, who started drawing the salary in the higher pay scale only from 15.03.1994. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the Railways, whose stand, as reflected from paragraph 9 & 12 of Exhibit P3 reply statement, is in the following terms: “9. Such an exercise has not been pursued in the case of the party respondents herein, who started drawing the salary in the higher pay scale only from 15.03.1994. This factual aspect has not been disputed by the Railways, whose stand, as reflected from paragraph 9 & 12 of Exhibit P3 reply statement, is in the following terms: “9. Regarding the averments in paragraphs 4(d) and 4(e) it is humbly submitted that the applicant is also a promotee and the averments for placement of her seniority above the 3rd and 4th Respondents is not maintainable. It is humbly submitted that the applicant and the Respondent employees joined the post of Commercial Clerk on 15.3.1994. 10. xxxx 11. xxxx 12. Regarding the averments in paragraph 4(h) it is submitted that the applicant's initial appointment is not on 03.01.1994. The Annexure A2 order does not give an indication that the applicant's initial appointment is on 3.1.94. The posting as a Commercial Clerk effected from 3.1.1994 is not an initial appointment but is on promotion. The initial appointment of the applicant was on 18.11.1987 as already submitted and what has been effected on 3.1.1994 is a promotion. The averments for revision of seniority are also not correct in the light of the positions explained in the above paragraphs and hence, they are denied. The Annexure A3 representation has been examined and replied as per Annexure A1 letter.” 12. The version of the Railways, as put forth in paragraph 12, that the petitioner was not given appointment with effect from 03.01.1994 does not appear to be correct; it being contrary to the contents of Annexure A2. The claim put forth by the petitioner was not sought to be rebutted by the contesting respondents as well, presumably for the reason that they are aware of the actual facts and figures. They did not turn up before the Tribunal, despite service of notice. Same is the position before this Court as well. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to have seniority over the party respondents survives and prevails and it has to be answered in favour of the petitioner. We do so. 13. They did not turn up before the Tribunal, despite service of notice. Same is the position before this Court as well. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to have seniority over the party respondents survives and prevails and it has to be answered in favour of the petitioner. We do so. 13. In the above circumstance, the verdict passed by the Tribunal by way of Exhibit P1 rejecting the claim for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme with effect from 03.01.2006 stands upheld; whereas the other portion of the verdict declining to settle the seniority of the petitioner over the respondents 3 and 4 stands interdicted. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority in the post of Commercial Clerk over the party respondents and all consequential benefits will follow. The Original Petition stands partly allowed and disposed of as above.