2014 (3) TMI 405 - HC - Indian Laws

Specialized service in the Department of Company Affairs - Central Company Law Services Rules, 1965. - merging Grade-II with Grade-I as also the seniority list - eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion - Held that - In view of aforesaid emphatic and categorical direction given by the Tribunal in its judgment dated October 03, 1997 to the department to treat the date of appointment of the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 as January 01, 1986, it is not at all open to the petitioners to challenge the action of the department to effect promotions to the Senior Administrative Grade on the basis that the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 were deemed to be appointed to Grade-I on January 01, 1986, particularly when the petitioners chose not to challenge the judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal as also accepted the seniority assigned to them vis- -vis the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 in the provisional/final seniority lists dated October 22, 1997/January 28, 1998. In the instant case, the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 were deemed to have been appointed to Junior Administrative Grade/Grade-I on January 01, 1986 in view of the directions contained in the judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal. The DPC in question had met on May 19, 1998 by which time the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 had rendered five/eight years of approved service in the Junior Administrative Grade/Grade-I and thus were rightly considered by the DPC for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade. There was no requirement in the CCLS Rules, 1965 or 1997 that the officer concerned should have actually worked for five/eight years in the Junior Administrative Grade/Grade-I as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - Petition dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Presidential order dated July 12, 1990, merging Grade-II with Grade-I.
2. Legality of the seniority list dated November 15, 1996.
3. Application of eligibility criteria for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) under the CCLS Rules, 1997.
4. Challenge to the review DPC held on May 19, 1998.
5. Definition and interpretation of 'approved service' under the CCLS Rules, 1965/1997.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Presidential order dated July 12, 1990, merging Grade-II with Grade-I:
The Tribunal held that it is not within its province to interfere with the order dated July 12, 1990, as it is a policy decision taken by the Government. The Tribunal stated that courts do not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions unless shown to be mala-fide or extremely perverse, which was not demonstrated in this case.

2. Legality of the seniority list dated November 15, 1996:
The Tribunal directed that the seniority list must be amended to reflect the merger order dated July 12, 1990, which treated officers working in Grade-II as having been appointed to Grade-I with effect from January 01, 1986. The seniority list should consider all persons holding Grade-II as of July 12, 1990, as holding the post of Grade-I from January 01, 1986, or their subsequent joining date before July 12, 1990. The Tribunal also noted that the promotion to SAG should be made only after finalizing the seniority list.

3. Application of eligibility criteria for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) under the CCLS Rules, 1997:
The Tribunal held that the eligibility criteria of eight years' approved service prescribed in the CCLS Rules, 1997, should not apply to vacancies that arose before the issuance of these rules. Since the DPC was held on February 06, 1997, before the new rules were notified, the old rules requiring five years of approved service should apply. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the department to hold a review DPC under the old rules.

4. Challenge to the review DPC held on May 19, 1998:
The petitioners contended that the department committed an illegality by including officers from Grade-II in the zone of consideration for the vacancies filled by the DPC on May 19, 1998. The Tribunal dismissed these challenges, noting that the seniority and promotions were conducted in accordance with the judgment dated October 03, 1997, which had attained finality and was not challenged by the petitioners.

5. Definition and interpretation of 'approved service' under the CCLS Rules, 1965/1997:
The Tribunal and the High Court both rejected the petitioners' argument that 'approved service' implied 'actual' service in Grade-I. The definition of 'approved service' included periods when an officer would have held a duty post but for being on leave or otherwise unavailable. The High Court emphasized that courts cannot add words to a statute, and the officers working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990, were deemed to have been appointed to Grade-I on January 01, 1986, per the Tribunal's directions.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners. The actions of the department were in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal's judgment dated October 03, 1997, which had attained finality. The court upheld the seniority and promotion decisions based on the merger and cadre review orders and the applicable rules at the time when the vacancies arose.

← Previous Next →