Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Railways could prescribe its own service rules and that IREM rules issued under Article 309 had statutory force. The CAT’s seniority ruling required replacing DITS with year of allotment, not abolishing promotees’ service weightage. The 2018 amendment complied with that direction, so the contempt challenge failed. The validity of weightage was left undecided because it had not been challenged in the original application.
Issues
- Whether DoPT circulars bound the Railways and whether the IREM had statutory force.
- Whether promotee weightage had been challenged or invalidated in the original proceedings.
- Whether the revised year-of-allotment seniority rules violated the CAT’s directions.
Provisions considered
- Article 309, proviso, Constitution of IndiaThe IREM communications and amendments invoked this rule-making power and therefore had statutory force. (¶ 22–25)
- DoPT allocation: recruitment and promotion items 2, 4–6; service conditions items 21–22 and 27, Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961The specified exclusions of Railway services meant DoPT circulars did not bind the Railways unless specifically accepted or made applicable by it. The Railways could frame its employees’ service conditions. (¶¶ 19–22, 25)
- Rule 334(2); Rules 327–341 as amended on 5 March 2018, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume IPromotee weightage had not been challenged or set aside. The revision replacing DITS with year of allotment complied with the CAT’s direction; the amended rules were unchallenged and had to be implemented. (¶¶ 11, 14, 26–35)
Held
- The Railways was excluded from the relevant DoPT business allocations. A DoPT circular could apply if the Railways specifically adopted it, but was not otherwise binding. The IREM provisions issued under the Article 309 proviso were statutory rules. (¶ 19–25)
- The original claim sought direct-recruit seniority from the requisition date and corrections aligning IREM with that claim. It did not plead or specifically seek invalidation of promotee weightage. Such a challenge required an appropriate foundation, express relief and joinder of affected promotees. (¶ 26–28)
- The Court rejected the reading of N.R. Parmar as giving these recruits seniority from the earlier requisition year when their vacancies belonged to a later year. Neither mode of recruitment could obtain seniority from a year in which its vacancies did not exist. (¶ 29–31)
- The CAT sought removal of arbitrariness associated with DITS by using year of allotment. It had not adjudicated Rule 334’s weightage. The 5 March 2018 revision therefore complied with, rather than disobeyed, its directions. The Court declined to decide the competing arguments about weightage’s substantive validity. (¶ 32–35)
- The dismissal of the CAT contempt petition was upheld and the transferred writ challenge dismissed. Intervention applications were rejected and connected contempt petitions disposed of. The separate SLP against an interim Madhya Pradesh order was disposed of as infructuous after final disposal below. (¶ 35–38)
Result
Appeal disposed of with the stated declarations; CAT contempt dismissal upheld and transferred writ case dismissed. Intervention applications rejected, contempt petitions disposed of and separate SLP 4144/2018 disposed of as infructuous.