IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 17291 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. P.P.JOY, AGED 32, PAROKKARAN HOUSE, P.O.THUMBOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ANIL J., ANIL NIVAS, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. YUVARAJ, 3-F THUSHAR, 67-C, RANGA COLONY RAJAKKIL PAKOM, CHENNAI. 4. SAJEEVKUMAR, SAJI NIVAS, PERURKADA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 5. T.S.GOPAKUMAR, SETHU BHAVAN, PLAMOODU, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 6. BRETTA J.FERNANDEZ, FERNLEINGH, CONVENT ROAD, THANKASSERY, KOLLAM. 7. P.T.JOHNSON, PADUTHURUTH HOUSE, KOMPATHUKADAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. SANJAI PANICKER, RAILWAY QUARTES, KOTTAYAM. 9. P.SETHUMADHAVAN, KRISHNA VIHAR, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. 10. K.P.JAMES, 135/C ANVAR GARDENS, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ZACHARIAH SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1& 2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 17291 of 2002(H) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 91/SEC.(SPL.)/200/8/1 DTD. 18TH SEPTEMBER, 1992. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10.6.1999. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NOS. 2629/99 & 2644/99 DTD. 20.1.2000. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DTD. 27.3.2002. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.9.1993. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROTION OF SENIORITY LIST OF SUB INSPECTORS AS ON 1.6.2001. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.6.2002. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 17291 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Sub Inspectors in the Executive Branch of the Railway Protection Force. The Railway Protection Force has three branches: (1) Executive Branch (2) Prosecution Branch and (3) Fire Service Branch. As per the Railway Protection Force Rules these three branches are water tight compartments and form separate cadres for the purpose of fixation of seniority. No member of each branch is eligible for transfer from one branch to another except for filling up vacancies below the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector in the prosecution branch. The railway took a decision to abolish the fire service branch. To accommodate the members of the fire service branch it was decided to form two additional battalions of Railway Protection Special Force, consequent to which 12 posts of inspectors were surrendered and those posts were added to the Railway Protection Special Force. Some of the members of the fire service branch challenged the abolition and transfer by filing original petitions before this court which did not find favour with the Single Judge, who dismissed the same. W.A. Nos. 2629 and 2644 of 1999 were preferred by the petitioners in those O.P. No. 17291 of 2002 - 2 - original petitions, in which the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. But the Division Bench recorded the statement of the railway administration that such persons would be given option to come back to Railway Protection Force on completion of three years of service in the Railway Protection Special Force. Some others of the fire service branch filed original petitions before the High Court of Judicature, Madras and by Ext.P4, the Madras High Court directed the Railway Board to give effect to their policy decision by absorbing petitioners in those writ petitions in the executive branch of the Railway Protection Force without affecting their seniority. Pursuant thereto those persons who were shifted to the Railway Protection Special Force, on completion of three years was absorbed in the executive branch without loss of seniority. The result was loss of promotion chances to the petitioners herein who are the original members of the executive branch. According to the petitioners, this is certainly an anomaly. The counsel for the petitioners would point out that as a result of those persons, who have been absorbed in the Railway Protection Special Force, being accommodated in the executive branch the persons remaining in the Railway Protection Special Force would gain an undue advantage in the matter of promotion as inspectors and at the O.P. No. 17291 of 2002 - 3 - same time persons like the petitioners who were originally in the executive branch would lose their chances of promotions on account of seniors originally from the fire service branch who come through the Railway Protection Special Rules would be put above the petitioners as seniors resulting in the petitioners being deprived of their legitimate expectation for further promotion as inspectors. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “i) to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P5 and P7 and to quash the same in so far as it affects the promotional chances of the petitioners. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revive the 12 posts of Inspectors surrendered at the time of transfer of the personnel from RPF/Fire to R.P.S.F. and to merge the said post with the Executive Branch of the R.P.F. before posting the personnel from the R.P.S.F. iii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled for promotion to the existing vacancies of Inspectors and the additional vacancies that may occur in future on the present staff strength of inspectors.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the railway administration in which the facts as stated above are not controverted. Their only contention is that this has been done only in the exigencies of service pursuant to a policy decision and if in the course of the said action the petitioners lose their chances of promotion that is only an incidence of service and the petitioners cannot complain about the same, as of right. O.P. No. 17291 of 2002 - 4 - 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. On going through the same, I find that there is certainly an anomaly in the matter. While certain persons remaining in the Railway Protection Special Force is getting an undue advantage in the matter of chances for promotion, correspondingly the petitioners in the executive branch are losing their legitimate expectation for promotion on account of persons from the Railway Protection Special Force being shifted to the executive branch without lose of seniority. Although the railway administration would say that they have no other option, admittedly, by virtue of Ext.P2, 12 posts of inspectors have been surrendered. One course available to the railway administration to resolve the anomaly is to transfer those surrendered posts of inspectors also to the executive branch so that at least the petitioners would be eligible to aspire for promotion to 12 additional posts. I am of opinion that this is a matter which has to be looked into by the Railway administration with the sympathy due to the petitioners, who have been remaining as Sub Inspectors in the executive branch for long. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file a suitable representation in this regard to the Director General of Railway Protection Force within one month from O.P. No. 17291 of 2002 - 5 - today along with a certified copy of this judgment. The Director General of Railway Protection Force shall consider the same in the light of the observations made hereinabove with the sympathy that the petitioners deserve in the right perspective, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said representation. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs