Case: Munshi Lal Verma Vs. Union of India

2. Appellant an Assistant in the employment of the Western Railway filed a suit asking appointment in one of the 24 upgraded posts ofcadre Clerks sanctioned in March 1957 with effect from April 1, 1956. The requisites to be satisfied for enjoying the advantage were that the employee should be a graduate on the date of the order viz., November 12, 1957 and should be entitled to be considered on the basis of seniority. The plaintiff was placed in the 21st position according to seniority and was already a graduate by the relevant date. He was, however, not given one of those upgraded posts as four out of the 24 upgraded posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees. Ultimately when employees of the reserved category were not available the posts were dereserved. Yet plaintiff was not given one of those posts. He, therefore, filed the suit.3. The Railway Administration took the stand that plaintiff had not passed the requisite test by the relevant date and before dereservation of the four posts the office was reorganised and the divisionalisation was adopted. The plaintiff, therefore had no. right to the post.4. The trial Court as also the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in Second Appeal have negatived relief to the plaintiff.

Court's reasoning:
The relevant order of the Railway Administration clearly indicates that the posts were upgraded with effect from April 1, 1956, and if the requisite qualification was possessed by the date of the order issued on November 12, 1957 plaintiffs claim was bound to succeed. Five aspects were raised for consideration in the Courts below and on the first four findings were given in favour of the plaintiff. But he lost on a finding that the posts did not exist. This finding seems to be contrary to the record inasmuch as in a letter dated September 19, 1963, it was clearly indicated that the four vacancies remained unfilled. If this aspect had been borne in mind, the plaintiff was bound to succeed. Mr. Francis for the Railway Administration had no. answer to this contention.5. The plaintiff must succeed on the findings already recorded in the Courts below.