1993 (1) TMI 316 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Seniority determination of direct recruits vs. promotees.
2. Application of quota rule for direct recruits and promotees.
3. Interpretation of recruitment and appointment under the Orissa Forest Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1959 and 1984.
4. Validity of promotions exceeding the prescribed quota.
5. Laches in seeking remedy by direct recruits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Determination of Direct Recruits vs. Promotees:

The primary issue was whether the respondent's seniority should be reckoned from the year of recruitment (1979) or the year of appointment (1981). The Tribunal observed that Rule 9(a) of the 1959 Rules, read with Rule 6, indicated that promotee officers and direct recruits were both to be on probation for two years. The Tribunal concluded that direct recruits should be treated as seniors to promotees, and thus, the first respondent should be treated as a recruit of 1979. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation flawed, stating that the 1959 Rules are statutory and not merely administrative instructions. The Court emphasized that Regulation 12(c) clearly states that the period of training does not count as service under the Government, and service counts only from the date of appointment after successful completion of training. Consequently, seniority should be reckoned from the date of appointment, not recruitment.

2. Application of Quota Rule for Direct Recruits and Promotees:

The Tribunal held that both the 1959 and 1984 Rules prescribed a quota of 1/3rd for promotees and 2/3rd for direct recruits. It found that promotees had encroached upon the quota for direct recruits, rendering such promotions illegal. However, the Supreme Court noted that Rule 5(3) of the 1959 Rules contains a provision allowing the Government to decide otherwise. The Court referenced the decision in "Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra," which allows for presumption of relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule. The Court found that the Government had taken a conscious decision to promote in excess of the quota due to administrative exigencies, such as the nationalization of Kendu Leaf Trade, and thus, these promotions were valid.

3. Interpretation of Recruitment and Appointment:

The Court clarified the distinction between "recruitment" and "appointment." Recruitment signifies enlistment or selection, while appointment refers to the actual act of posting to a service. The Court found that the 1959 Rules did not specify that seniority should be reckoned from the date of recruitment. Instead, Regulation 12(c) explicitly states that the period of training does not count as service. The Court rejected the argument that the 1984 Rules, which provide that the date of appointment for direct recruits should be deemed two years prior to the actual date of appointment, should apply retroactively. The Court concluded that the seniority of direct recruits should be reckoned from the date of appointment, not recruitment.

4. Validity of Promotions Exceeding the Prescribed Quota:

The Supreme Court found that the Government had taken a decision to promote in excess of the 1/3rd quota due to the non-availability of direct recruits and administrative exigencies. The Court noted that the promotions were made on an ad hoc basis initially but were later regularized with the concurrence of the Orissa Public Service Commission. The Court held that such promotions were valid and necessary to avoid hampering government work. The promotions were supported by a conscious decision of the Government, permissible under Rule 5(3).

5. Laches in Seeking Remedy by Direct Recruits:

The Court noted that the gradation list, which was impugned by the first respondent, had been in operation since 1985. The first respondent approached the Tribunal only in 1988. The Court found that there was a delay in seeking remedy, and this delay was known to the direct recruit, as evidenced by his petition. The Court emphasized that it did not want to unsettle settled matters, which could lead to several complications.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Tribunal, stating that the seniority of direct recruits should be reckoned from the date of appointment, not recruitment. The promotions made in excess of the prescribed quota were deemed valid due to administrative exigencies and a conscious decision by the Government. The appeals were allowed, and the settled gradation list was upheld.