Case: Railway Board and Others Vs. P.R. Subramaniyam and Others

2. For getting promotion from Grade II to Grade I, the respondents had to pass a departmental examination known as Appendix II A Examination. In Grade II, respondent No. 1 having been appointed earlier was senior to respondents 2 to 9 and respondent 2 was junior to respondent 3 but senior to respondents 4 to 9. Respondents 3 to 5 had passed Appendix II A examination before the 1st April, 1956. Respondent 6 passed it in April, 1956. Respondents 2 and 7 to 9 passed the said examination in November, 1956 and respondent 1 passed it lastly in May, 1957.      3. In the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I are the Rules framed by the President of India under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Contained in the said Code is then Rule 157 which authorises the Railway Board, as permissible under Art 309, to have "full powers to make rules of general application tod railway servants under their control". The Railway Board have been framing rules in exercise of this power from time to time. No special procedure or method is prescribed for the making of such rules by the Railway Board. But they have been treated as rules having the force of rules framed under Art. 309 pursuant to the delegated power to the Railway Board if they are of general application tod railway servants or to a class of them.      4. Eventually all the respondents were confirmed in Grade I with effect from 1st April, 1956. But the difference in their inter se seniority was brought about because respondents 3 to 9 were confirmed in permanent post while respondents 1 and 2 were confirmed in supernumerary posts. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed on the basis of Rule 20(b) contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume I that irrespective of the dates of their passing the departmental examination their seniority in Grade II had to be reflected in Grade I when they were confirmed in that Grade from a date with effect from which respondents 3 to 9 had also been confirmed. On the other hand the case of the appellants as also some of the containing respondents in the High Court has been that the aforesaid Rule 20(b) contained in the Railway Establishment Manual is of no universal application and was subject to the rules and orders which were issued by the Railway Board from time to time. According to such rules and orders, those who were confirmed in supernumerary posts and later in permanent posts had to rank junior to those who were confirmed earlier in permanent posts. The learned single Judge accepted the stand taken on behalf of the appellants but the Division Bench rejected it.

Reasoning:
9. The Prefactory Note of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual which contains the above rule says : "It must be noted that the provisions of this Manual do not supersede the rules contained in any of the Indian Railway Codes in a case of conflict the latter should prevail. This manual may not be referred to as the final authority and a reference should always be made to the original orders on the subject". It would thus be seen that those who were confirmed in Grade I against permanent posts in accordance with the decision contained in Ext. R9 must rank senior to those who were absorbed against permanent posts later although they were confirmed in Grade I w.e.f. the 1st April, 1956. There was nothing wrong in it. It is undisputed that respondents 3 to 9 had been confirmed due to one reason or the other against permanent post earlier than respondents 1 and 2. In our judgment, the decision contained in Ext. R9 which had the force of a rule made under Rule 157 did override Rule 20(b) contained in the manual. Respondents 1 and 2, therefore, were not entitled to get any relief for the quashing of the impugned order Ext P4 dated the 6th March, 1972. Their writ petition was rightly dismissed by the single Judge and wrongly allowed by the Division Bench.