ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)
Heard Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. V. Rajeswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the applicants in this application is that though as per Para 303(a) of IREM Vol. I, 1985 seniority of Assistant Loco Pilots is to be fixed on the basis of the marks obtained in the final examination conducted after the completion of the training, the respondents without conducting final examination after completion of the training and in fact dispensing with one of the training components viz., diesel training, fixed the seniority on the basis of the examination conducted in respect of the individual components of training without notifying the merit order. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in a similar case wherein one of the components has been dispensed with and when no final examination has been conducted, the South Central Railway sought a clarification from the Railway Board as to how the seniority is to be fixed in cases where one of the components of the training are dispensed with and no final examination is conducted and then the Railway Board clarified on 06.09.2007 to the General Manager (Personnel), South Central Railway stating that in such cases seniority of the Assistant Loco Pilots (Diesel/ Electrical) who have been recruited between 1996 and 2000 in Vijayawada Division is to be fixed on the basis of RRB merit position in respect of direct recruitees and the select panel position in respect of the promotees and the very same clarification is applicable to the East Coast Railway. He further contended that instead of following the said clarification issued by the Railway Board, the respondents herein have fixed inter-se seniority without conducting final examination. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants made representation to the Chief Personnel Officer requesting them to fix inter-se seniority on the basis of the panel position in the select list and the same was rejected by the respondents on 13.06.2006. However, the learned counsel admitted that the Board's clarification given to the South Central Railway was not brought to the notice of the respondents.
3. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to direct the applicants to submit a fresh representation to the respondents specifically pointing out the clarification given by the Railway Board to the South Central Railway on 06.09.2007, and on submitting such representation, the respondents are directed to verify whether the said clarification is applicable to the facts of this case and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules.
4. O.A. is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the applicants to submit a fresh representation to the respondents and on making such representation, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the applicants, in accordance with the rules.
5. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.