1987 (10) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute over seniority between petitioners and respondent No. 5.
2. Legality of the notional date of appointment with retrospective effect.
3. Eligibility of respondent No. 5 for appointment as SP in CBI.
4. Seniority of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986 in the rank of SP in CBI.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute over Seniority Between Petitioners and Respondent No. 5:
The petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were directly recruited as DSPs in CBI in 1963, while respondent No. 5, O.P. Sharma, was a deputationist from Rajasthan State Police, confirmed as DSP in 1964. The dispute arose when the respondent No. 2 published a seniority list in 1981, showing Sharma senior to the petitioners based on a notional date of appointment as SP from 21-10-1971 (FN). The petitioners challenged this seniority list, claiming it was done mala fide without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

2. Legality of the Notional Date of Appointment with Retrospective Effect:
The petitioners argued that the notional date of appointment of Sharma with retrospective effect was done without reasonable justification and was mala fide. The respondents contended that Sharma was eligible for appointment to the post of SP in July 1970, but the meeting of the DPC was postponed arbitrarily. The court found that the postponement of the DPC was not arbitrary as it was done to allow non-deputationist DSPs to become eligible for promotion. Thus, the retrospective appointment of Sharma from 21-10-1971 (FN) was deemed unjustified.

3. Eligibility of Respondent No. 5 for Appointment as SP in CBI:
The petitioners contended that Sharma was not eligible for the post of SP as he did not complete eight years of service as DSP in CBI. The court clarified that "eight years' service in the grade" meant service in the grade of DSP, including service in the State Police. Sharma, having served as DSP in Rajasthan State Police and CBI for over eight years, was eligible for the post of SP. However, the court found that the retrospective appointment of Sharma was not justified as the postponement of the DPC was not arbitrary.

4. Seniority of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986 in the Rank of SP in CBI:
The petitioner, Dwarka Nath, argued that his service as Deputy Commandant in BSF should be counted for seniority in CBI. The court held that the period from 14-6-1976, when he was promoted to Deputy Commandant in BSF, should be considered for seniority in CBI. The court found that the circulars issued by CBI regarding seniority were unworkable and not acted upon, and thus, Nath's seniority should be counted from 14-6-1976.

Judgments Delivered:
1. Writ Petitions Nos. 9847-48 of 1983:
- The court quashed the order appointing Sharma with retrospective effect from 21-10-1971 (FN) and the seniority list showing Sharma as senior to the petitioners.
- Directed the respondents to publish a fresh seniority list showing the petitioners as seniors to Sharma.

2. Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986:
- The court quashed the seniority list showing the petitioner junior to respondents Nos. 5 to 7.
- Directed the respondents to allot proper seniority to the petitioner from 14-6-1976 and issue a fresh seniority list showing him senior to respondents Nos. 5 to 7.

The court also left the issue of the petitioner's date of birth in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986 open for future challenge. No order as to costs was made in any of the writ petitions.