OA allowed order setaside CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00032/2023 Dated this, the 3rd day of February Two Thousand Twenty Six CORAM : HON’BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J) HON’BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A) 1. V.L.Kingston, 2. Lionel. S. R., 3. Chinnasamy. /,for petner advocate M Ravi

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00032/2023

Dated this, the 3rd day of February Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON’BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)

1. V.L.Kingston,
2. Lionel. S. R.,
3. Chinnasamy. B.,
4. Akhilesh T.S.,
5. Sreeram K.M.,
6. Linga Ganapathi S.,
7. Sujanidyananth R.,
8. Manoj Vignesh G.,
9. Suhail T.,
10. Akheel Anzil,
11. Nirmalkumar G.R.,
12. Sabeer S.,
13. Vipin Sivan,
14. Venkadeshwaran V.C.,
15. Induja T.J.,
16. Vishnu E.,
17. Akhil M.M.,
18. Manikandan S.,
19. Dileep S.,
20. Sivasubramanian S.,
21. Arigaran V.,
22. Selvakumar V.,
23. Buvaneshwaran M.,
24. M.Amal,
25. Deepak K. …..Applicants

By Advocate M/s. M.Ravi

Vs.

1.Union of India,
Rep by Chairman,
Railway Recruitment Board – Chennai,
5, Dr.P.V. Cherian Crescent Road, Egmore, Chennai 600008.

2.The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Headquarters Office,
Southern Railway, Chennai 600003.

3.Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Divisional Office, Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Chennai 600003.

4.Jijesh P.K.,
Poolakkandy House,
Vengad Post, Kannur, Kerala. Pin – 670661.

5.Rohit Hareendran,
Pathmaragam, Palayad PO,
Thalassery, Kannur, Kerala. Pin 670661.

6.Vineeth V.,
Sreekandath House, Chirakkal Post, Chaluvayal, Kannur, Kerala. Pin 670011.

7.Haripriya J.,
No. 62, 2nd Cross, 3rd Main Street,
Vallalarnagar, Pattabhiram, Chennai. Pin – 600072.

8.Premkumar T.,
No. 265, MIG NHI, Veerakavariyar Street, Maraimalainagar, Chengalpattu. Pin 603209.

9.Dhamotharan G.C.,
1/248, Mahalakshmi Colony,
Perumbacheri, Kunappangthal PO,
Ilayangudi – (Tk), Sivagangai, Pin – 623701. ….Respondents

By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC (R1-R3)

ORDER (Pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))
This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:-
“to call for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondents pertaining to proceedings No.P(SFC)721/Staff Grievances/PB/HQ dated 18.05.2022 and No. P(SFC)721/Staff Grievances/PB/HQ dated 24.06.2022 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd Respondent to revise the combined seniority list of Assistant Loco Pilots in Chennai Division as Proceedings
No. issued by the 3rd Respondent in
M/P1(E)612/VI/RG/Seniority/ALP/SR.ALP dated 27.01.2022 and include the names of the applicants in the appropriate place in the original seniority list issued by the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings No. M/P1(E)612/VI/RG/Seniority/ALP dated 20.04.2021 in the order of the merit in the selection proceedings and to place them in the said list with reference to the relative merit on the basis of the marks secured in the respective Training and accordingly to place the Applicants in the appropriate place in the combined seniority list of Assistant Loco Pilots in Chennai Division as issued by the 3rd Respondent in proceedings No. M/P1(E)612/VI/RG/Seniority/ALP/SR.ALP dated 27.01.2022 and to consequently include their names in the respective panels for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilots in Chennai Division and to promote them as such with effect from the date of promotion of their immediate juniors and to grant them all consequential service and monetary benefits within a limited time frame as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal and pass such further or other order as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal and thus render justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants, are as follows :-
2.1. Pursuant to the recruitment notification CEN No. 01/2018 issued by Railway Recruitment Board, published on 03.02.2018, the applicants herein applied for participation in the selection for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) and Technician. There were three stages in the said selection proceedings viz. (i) Computer Based Test-1 (ii) Computer BasedTest-2 and
(iii) Computer Based Aptitude Test (Psychometric Test). Once a candidate is successful in the aforesaid three tests, they will be subjected to Document Verification followed by Medical Examination and once they are proved to be medically fit enough they will be empanelled to the post of ALP against notified vacancies. The empanelled candidates will be allotted to each division depending upon its requirement.
2.2. It is submitted that in the aforesaid selection proceedings conducted in pursuance of the notification published on 03.02.2018 all the applicants had succeeded in the three stages of tests and also were found to be fit in the Medical Examination. The empanelment ought to have been done in the order of merit, based on their performance in the tests.
2.3. It is submitted that the 1st respondent published a list of candidates for the post of ALP named Provisional Part Panel-1 wherein it was clearly mentioned in the 1st respondent website while publishing the Provisional Part Panel-1 that the list is purely provisional and the list of candidates was arranged in ascending order on the basis of roll number and not based on merit. On 14.10.2019, a second set list of candidates were published by 1st respondent named Provisional Part Panel-2 and the same was also arranged in an ascending order only on the basis of roll number and not based on merit. All the 25 applicants were included in the Provisional Part Panel-2, irrespective of their higher merit ranking. The Provisional Part Panel-2 candidates were allotted to various divisions by the 2nd respondent and by then the candidates included in Provisional Part Panel-1 were already deputed to training which included two sessions namely (i) GRS (General Rules and Subsidiary Rules) at Multi Disciplinary Zonal Training Institute,
Trichy (TPJ) and (ii) Technical training in different types of locomotives at Zonal Electric Traction Training Centre, Avadi. The selected candidates listed in Provisional Part Panel-2 including the applicants were deputed to the aforesaid training in subsequent batches, irrespective of their merit ranking which was higher than many of the candidates who were listed in
Provisional Part Panel-1. In fact all the applicants were allotted to Chennai Division and later they were deputed to training on 12.09.2020.
2.4. The applicants after their successful completion of training were posted in the concerned depot (i.e., working post) on 20.02.2021. Each of them had passed the examinations at the end of the training on their first attempt itself and they were also regularly absorbed as ALP. Though the 1st respondent had only issued Provisional Panel in two parts, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were duty bound to finalize the said provisional panels on the basis of the merit of the candidates in the selection proceedings and the top ranking candidates on the basis of the marks secured by them shall have to be listed in final Panel Part-1 and the remaining candidates in the order of their merit shall have to be included in final Panel Part-2 and only on that basis they should have been allotted to respective divisions based on requirements. Thereafter, in that order, the candidates should have been deputed to the aforesaid training. Accordingly the higher ranking candidates on the basis of their merit ie., marks scored in the selection proceedings conducted by 1st respondent would have automatically completed training prior to the lower ranking candidates and on the basis of the marks obtained in the training, seniority will be assigned to them.
2.5. Thereafter few of the applicants came to know that a revised Provisional Seniority List of ALP, Chennai Division was issued on 20.04.2021 with candidates who were issued with orders of appointment and deputed to training on the basis of their placement in Provisional Part Panel1, despite their securing lower marks than the applicants in the selection proceedings which is in complete violation of IREM para 303(а). Subsequently, they had submitted representations to the 3rd respondent. The applicants were given to understand that the anomaly will be duly rectified.
However, their names were never included in the said seniority list issued on 20.04.2021 by the 3rd respondent and all the candidates who were placed in provisional Part Panel-2 issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of roll numbers in an ascending order were included in the combined seniority list issued on 27.01.2022 by the 3rd respondent herein where the meritorious applicants were placed below the lower meritorious candidates. Thereafter, the applicants had submitted representations to the department which were rejected. As a result, the candidates who had secured lower ranking in the selection proceedings were allotted to divisions earlier and as a result they were promoted to the post of Senior ALPs much before the applicants in spite of having secured higher merit in the selection proceedings. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicants. They have contended that the said seniority list dt. 27.01.2022 of the candidates, appointed to the posts of the Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) was prepared based on the marks obtained by them at the end of the mandatory training. There is no role to the merit order sent by the
Railway Recruitment Board in determining their seniority. The RRB Candidates shall be sent to training in batches one after the other, consequent to their medical fitness, on first come first serve basis. Though the candidates are sent in batches to training for administrative reasons, their seniority will be decided batch-wise, only on the basis of marks obtained in the training. subject to condition that they should pass the training in the first attempt. It is contended that the selected candidates were called for appointment process based on the RRB papers distributed by the Zonal
Railway under Part Panel-2 list. The Part Panel-1 was received on 13.09.2019 and the second was received on 11.12.2019. They were directed for training in the order of art panel wise and the final seniority was determined in the order of merit which was derived based on the marks obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post.
3.2. It is contended that the list of selected candidates against CEN.No.01/2018, were published by RRB-Chennai on 06.06.2019. Out of those successful candidates, some of them were opted for ALP and some of them for Technician post and few of them for both ALP and Technician. Technicians were considered higher priority than ALP. As such, Part Panel1 for 505 candidates [352 -ALP (Electrical) & 153 ALP (Mechanical)], was issued by RRB/Chennai. Those who had opted for ALP are to be completed document verification and are to be found medically fit in Aye One category before subjecting them for prescribed period of training. The eligible candidates were allotted to Southern Railway for redistribution of papers to all the divisions under it. The 505 candidates in Part Panel-1 were redistributed and out of which 321 RRB papers were given to Chennai division by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dt. 13.09.2019 with the instructions that the above panel was part panel and advised to process appointments on a provisional basis in order to avoid delay in appointing candidates who were eagerly awaiting for government job. It was further instructed to send all the candidates for training. Accordingly, the candidates were sent for training from 14.10.2019 onwards in 6 batches. Similarly, the Part Panel-2 was later issued on 20.08.2019 for 230 [159-ALP (Electrical) & 71-ALP (Mechanical)]. Subsequently, 230 RRB candidates were
redistributed for various divisions of the zonal railway, out of which 105
RRB candidates were allotted to Chennai division vide PCPO/Southern Railway letter dt. 11.12.2019. The candidates of Part Panel-2 were sent for training from 12.09.2020 in 2 batches in the order of merit given by PCPO/Southern Railway. The applicants come under Part Panel-2.
3.3. It is contended that, PCPO/Southern Railway vide letters cited under Para 4.3 above, has advised to send for candidates to training as soon as possible from each of the Part Panel list issued, irrespective of candidates in the order of merit in the RRB. In compliance of the same, the 3rd respondent had directed the candidates for the mandatory training. The seniority of the employees were assigned in batch wise, in the part panel, on successful completion of training in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period, before being posted against working post. It is contended that there were no instructions with regard to assigning seniority in the order of merit obtained in RRB examination neither in PCPO/S. Rly letters dt. 13.09.2019/11.12.2019 nor in terms of provisions as contained in Para 303 of IREM Vol. I, in respect of ALP post. However, their seniority was assigned based on the marks obtained in the training course in the order of merit, batch wise, separately for Panel-1 and separately for Panel-2 respectively. The seniority assigned above is in line with the instructions as contained in Para 303 of IREM and subsequent railway boards instructions as contained in Master Circular No. 34.
3.4. It is contended that the provisional seniority list for ALP in Pay matrix level-2 as on 01.01.2021 was issued by the 3rd respondent vide letter dt.

20.01.2021 based on the marks obtained by the employees in the training in part panel wise in batches separately maintaining the inter-se- seniority of the employees of batch wise within part panels advising with representation if any, to be submitted before 20.02.2021. The 2nd batch employees of Part Panel-1 had represented against the seniority list since they happen to be senior to 1st batch employees of Part Panel-1 but for delay in document verification they were sent two days later. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Par 303 of IREM Vol. I, a revised provisional seniority list was issued vide 3rd respondent letter dt. 20.04.2021,duly clubbing batch 1 and batch 2 employees together in part panel 1 which consisted of 90 employees and taking into consideration of marks obtained in the training.
3.5. It is contended that it was clearly mentioned in the Part Panel-1 published by RRB that the list contains the names of the candidates who have successfully completed the Document Verification and Medical Examination and that some of the candidates though they have successfully completed the Document verification and Medical examination but for their option for Technicians which is of higher priority than ALP, the candidates were sent for training based on Part panel lists allocated to the division in compliance of Zonal Railway order of allocation and appointment of RRB candidates. The merit order obtained by the candidates in RRB can be considered only for appointment and the seniority in the substantive post is to be fixed on successful completion of initial training and based on the marks obtained in the training. The candidates were sent for initial training as per the availability of training slots in Railway training institutes and also based on the allotment of RRB papers to Chennai division in the order of merit of part panels as per option exercised by the candidates to Technicians
/ALPs, document verification / medical examination completed at RRB. Further, the revised provisional seniority list was issued on 20.04.2021 based on the marks secured by the candidates in the merit order of marks obtained in the training as per Part 303 of IREM Vol. 1 duly maintaining the inter-seseniority of batches sent for training in part panel lists of RRB. The promotion to the post of Sr.ALP in pay matrix level-4 issued vide Sr.DPO/MAS letter dt. 16.05.2022 is based on the seniority of the employees in the lower feeder ALP category.
3.6. It is contended that the candidates of Part Panel-2 though have secured higher marks in the RRB but for their option exercised for Technician post, were allotted to Chennai division after a gap of one year as compared to the candidates of Part Panel-1 and as such sent for training at a later date in batches. The candidates of Part Panel-2 seeking seniority on par with Part Panel-1 does not arise as they were allotted to Chennai division only after a year later by this time all the candidates of Part Panel 1 who have completed training and entered into regular cadre. The seniority of all the candidates were fixed based on the merit of the marks obtained in the initial training in terms of Para 303 of IREM Vol. I by clubbing together batches in respect of batch 1 and batch 2 of Part Panel-1 in order to maintain their inter-se seniority and all other candidates of batches in the order of merit of the marks obtained in the training in part panels. Thus the provisional seniority which was revised and fixed on 20.04.2021 and the subsequent provisional seniority list dt. 27.01.2022 are in order and the same need no revision.
4. The applicants have filed their rejoinder reiterated their contentions made in the OA.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records including the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the order dt. 21.11.2025 of this Tribunal in OA 54/2021 in the case of Prabas Kumar & ors Vs. Union of India, rep by General Manager, Southern Railways and ors., in support of his arguments.
7. This Tribunal, in a similar case in OA No. 52/2021 relating to Station Masters under the same respondents has dealt the matter in detail and held that the inter se seniority in Railways is to be regulated in accordance with the RRB panel batchwise as per para 303 of the IREM Vol. I Chapter 3 and not as per the date of passing of the examination. The same is extracted below :-

“4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The only issue to be decided in this OA is whether the seniority of candidate recorded through the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) should be determined as per the merit list in the panel of RRB or as per the marks obtained during training period.

6. The para 303 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) is the guiding rule in the matter and the same is extracted below :-

“303. The seniority of candidates recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board or by any other recruiting authority should be determined as under:-
(a) Candidates who are sent for initial training to Training Schools will rank in Seniority in the relevant Grade in the order of merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period before being posted against working post. Those who join the subsequent courses and those who pass the examination in subsequent chances will rank junior to those who had passed the examination. In case, however, persons belonging to the same RRB panel are sent for initial training in batches due to administrative reasons and not because of reasons attributable to the candidates, the inter-se seniority will be regulated batchwise provided persons higher up in the panel of RRB not sent for training in the appropriate batch (as per seniority) due to administrative reasons shall be clubbed along with the candidates who took the training in the appropriate batch for the purpose of regulating the inter-se seniority provided such persons pass the examination at the end of the training in the first attempt.”

7. Learned counsel for respondents has stated that out of 149 candidates allotted to Chennai Division, the RRB merit order could not be followed due to the following reasons :-

a. Candidates did not report to this office in the order of merit

b. Medical certificate was received as and when the candidate completed the Medical examination and not as per RRB merit.

c. Candidates were directed to initial training as per the receipt of Medical certificate and not as per the merit order of RRB.

8. A perusal of the reasons cited above shows that conduct of medical examination as well as sending for training is entirely within the functional domain of the Railways and a candidate has very limited role in both the matter. By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be attributed to the candidate simply due to the reason that the medical examination is conducted by the medical board of the respondents only. Further, after publication of the select lists by RRB, it is the primary responsibility of the respondent authorities to schedule the medical examination similar to that of UPSC and assign a date for all to join in their posts and subsequently send them for training in a single or phased manner in accordance with their seniority as per IREM. Having failed to follow these procedure, the respondent authorities have passed on their shortcomings to the candidates by issuing a seniority list simply on the marks obtained in the training school which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 303a of IREM.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted an order dt. 06.02.2018 of the Salem Division in Southern Railways wherein the inter se seniority has been regulated in accordance with RRB Panel batchwise as per IREM Vol. I Chapter 3 para 303. When in a similar situation, the provisions of IREM Rule 303 has been followed for re-examining the seniority list, we do not find any reason for the respondent authority in Chennai Division not to adhere to the same guidelines in the present case.

10. In view of the above, the impugned order dt. 19.10.2020 (Annexure A6) is quashed and set aside being contrary to the provisions of Para 303 of IREM and the respondent authorities are directed to recast the provisional seniority list dt. 06.03.2019 of the Station Masters belonging to the applicant’s batch in accordance with the RRB panel, provided they have passed the examination at the end of their training in first attempt, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No costs.”

8. Learned counsel for the applicants, in his written submissions submits that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways in its proceedings RBE No. 87/2025 dt. 25.08.2025 had issued a clear and categorical clarification in regard to the intra batch seniority amongst those who are selected in pursuance of the very same RRB notification. The relevant portion of the aforesaid circular is extracted below :-
“Sub: Rules regarding seniority of Non-Gazetted Railway Employees.

Ref: i) Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/2022/SR6/8 dated 12.09.2022 (RBE No. 111/2022).

********

AIRF (vide PNM/AIRF item No. 24/2024) has pointed out that the clarification of Para 303(а) of IREM Vol.I issued by Board vide above referred letter is being interpreted at the Zonal Railway level to determine seniority by preparing a combined merit list on the basis of marks obtained in the posttraining final examinations of the candidates sent in different batches due to administrative reasons. This would obviously be not the correct way of applying the above referred instructions.

Therefore, it is further clarified that the purport of amended Para303(a) is that the seniority shall be decided as per appropriate batch (formed as per RRB/RRC panel position) and sent for initial training as per panel position with clubbing in a batch allowed for those candidates who could not be sent for training in an appropriate batch due to administrative reasons. The subsequent appropriate batch sent for initial training will rank en-bloc junior to the previous appropriate batch sent for initial training. Only the intra-batch seniority, in case the entire RRB/RRC panel is sent for initial training in multiple appropriate batches, will be decided based on the marks obtained in the examination(s) at the end of the training period.

The Railways/PUs are therefore advised to take action in determining the seniority of staff as per Para-303 (a) accordingly.”

9. In the instant case, the instruction issued by PCPO of Southern Railways vide their letter dt. 13.09.2019/11.12.2019 are contrary to the provisions of para 303 of IREM Vol. I which is the statute.
10. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. The impugned
communications dt. 18.05.2022 and 24.06.2022 are quashed and set aside being contrary to the provisions of Para 303 of IREM. The respondents are directed to revise the provisional seniority list dt. 27.01.2022 of Assistant Loco Pilots (ALPs), include the names of the applicants in the appropriate place in the revised provisional seniority list dt. 20.04.2021 as per the RRB panel instead of their own panel made for training in the order of the merit obtained in the examination held at the end of the training period, provided they have passed the examination at the end of their training in first attempt and consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot (Sr. ALP) with all consequential service benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. No costs.

(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
03.02.2026
SKSI