Case: S.K. Chandan Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

Respondent 1, the Union of India, established the Locomotive Component Works at Varanasi in 1956 for manufacturing component parts of locomotives. That manufactory merged in 1961 with the Diesel Locomotive Works, The appellant, S.K. Chandan, who was serving with the Western Railway as a Chargeman was transferred in 1963 to the Diesel Locomotive Works in the grade of Rs. 375-475 which he was holding at the time of his transfer as a member of the Class III service. The question which arises in this appeal concerns the claim of the appellant to be promoted to Class II1975 the appellant filed the present writ petition in the Allahabad High Court asking for the writs of Certiorari and Mandamus. We arc now concerned with the grant of the latter writ only by which the appellant prayed, inter alia, that respondent 1 be directed to hold selections to Class II service in accordance with the "Advance Correction Slip 70." This particular prayer was rejected by the High Court by its judgment dated January 12, 1976 on the view that rules contained in Slip 70 did not govern the promotion of Class III employees to Class II. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave of this Court. The leave is restricted to the question whether the promotion of Class III employees to Class II is governed by Slip105 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Vol. I) divides railway services into two categories gazetted and non-gazetted. Services in Classes 1 and II are gazetted whereas those in Classes 111 and IV and t he Services of the Workshop Staff are designated as non-gazetted. Paragraph 157 of the Code confers on the Railway Board "full powers to make rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control." Acting in pursuance of this power, the Railway Board has framed rules which are to be found in the "Indian Railway Establishment Manual." Chapter i of those rules deals with questions relating to recruitment , training, confirmation and reemployment. Chapter II which is headed "Rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff consists of two sections, A and B. Section A deals with "Promotion to Class II posts" while section B contains "Rules governing the promotion of subordinate staff. Chapter III is headed "Rules regulating seniority of non-gazetted railway servants."Originally, Chapter III contained rules 301 to 323. The Advance Correction Slip No. 70, also issued by the Railway Board in exercise of its powers under Paragraph 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, substituted a new rule 301 for the existing rule and it introduced five new rules in Chapter III, namely rules 324 to 328. The contention of the appellant which requires examination in this appeal is that his promotion to Class II is governed by the rules introduced by S lip No. 70 which came into force on March 11,appellant, who argued his own case before us with quite industry and plausibility, did not dispute that rules 324, 323, 327 328(1) and 328(3) have no application to this case. Rule 326(2) which prescribes deemed dates of transfers would apply but has been concededly compiled with, the appellant having no grievance in regard to the fixation of the deemed date of his transfer to the Diesel Locomotive Works. Keeping these provisions apart, the question boils down to the applicability of rules 301 and 328(2), (4) and (5).

Court's reasoning:
The High Court was accordingly right in refusing to issue a writ of mandamus directing the railway administration to apply the provisions of Chapter III in the matter of the appellants promotion to a Class IIappellant has filed a civil miscellaneous petition (7990 of 1976) complaining of adverse entries in his Service record and of the fact that he has been superseded in the matter of promotion. These very grievances were made by him in the High Court but he lost on those points. While granting special leave to appeal, this Court refused to consider the correctness of the High Courts findings on those issues. The leave being restricted to the question as regards the application of rules introduced by Advance Correction Slip No. 70. the appellant cannot be permitted to raise questions which must be taken as finally decided under the judgment of the High Court.