2020 (12) TMI 30 - SC - Indian Laws

Recruitment of Departmental Promotees (DPs) - filling of posts of Tax Assistants - the DPs were concededly appointed prior to the DRs, where the latter, as is argued by them appointed on the basis of merit in the same selection - Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975 - HELD THAT - The entire rule (Rule 27 1 and the two provisos) what is evident is that (a) before the amendment of 2002, seniority of personnel appointed to the lowest categories of posts in any department was to be determined as from the date of appointment; however, for promotees, it was to be from the date of selection; (b) after the amendment of 2002, seniority has to be fixed (by reason of Rule 27 (1)) as on the date of appointment to the post or service; (c) however, in the case of pre-state integration of state (of Rajasthan) or pre-integration of services, seniority could be modified or altered by the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc basis - this clearly was meant to be a sunset clause, i.e. operative for a limited period; (d) the second proviso,- which is the one pressed into service by the DRs, states that seniority of those selected earlier will be determined over those selected latter. Plainly, the principal mandate of the rule is that seniority is determined on the basis of date of appointment ( shall be fixed from the date of their appointment ). Proviso (2) lists out two rules. The first is that those selected and appointed through a prior selection would rank senior to those selected and appointed through a later selection process. The High Court, in this case, was of the opinion that this rule (i.e. proviso) applied to selections from the same source, i.e. where two sets of direct recruits were appointed, those selected through a previous recruitment process, would rank senior to those recruited through a later recruitment process. This interpretation is, in this court s opinion, salutary. There may be various reasons why the ultimate appointment of one batch of recruits may be delayed challenges to some part of the recruitment process (such as shortlisting, calling of candidates for interviews etc.), during which period, a subsequent recruitment may be undertaken. Keeping in mind that the advertisements (for filling the entire cadre, in both the quotas or streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other, and more importantly, that this was the first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre, the delay which occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also the completion of procedure, such as verification of antecedents) the seniority of the promotees given on the basis of their dates of appointment, is justified by Rule 27 in this case. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority determination between Direct Recruits (DRs) and Departmental Promotees (DPs).
2. Interpretation and application of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975.
3. Allegations of malice and manipulation in the recruitment process.
4. Validity of the seniority lists published by the Commercial Taxes Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Determination Between DRs and DPs:
The central issue in this case was whether the Direct Recruits (DRs) were entitled to claim seniority over the Departmental Promotees (DPs). The DRs argued that they were selected through an earlier recruitment process and thus should be senior to the DPs. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, however, held that the DRs were not entitled to claim seniority over the DPs, as the latter were appointed earlier.

2. Interpretation and Application of Rule 27:
The Single Judge originally ruled in favor of the DRs, interpreting Rule 27 to mean that those selected and appointed as a result of an earlier selection process should rank senior to those from a subsequent selection. The Division Bench, however, noted that Rule 27 had been amended and emphasized that the main provision of the rule, which fixes seniority from the date of appointment, should prevail. The Division Bench concluded that the proviso to Rule 27 applied only when two selections were for the same category of recruits, and since DRs and DPs were from different categories, the main rule based on the date of appointment should apply.

3. Allegations of Malice and Manipulation:
The DRs contended that the Commercial Taxes Department deliberately delayed their appointment letters to favor the DPs, who were issued appointment letters earlier to secure their seniority. The Division Bench, however, found no substantial evidence of malice or manipulation. The court noted that the administrative procedures, such as police verification and medical tests for DRs, took time, and the DPs, being existing employees, did not require these checks, which expedited their appointments.

4. Validity of the Seniority Lists:
The DRs challenged the seniority lists published by the Commercial Taxes Department, arguing that they were contrary to law. The Division Bench upheld the validity of these lists, stating that the seniority was correctly determined based on the date of appointment as per the amended Rule 27. The court also noted that the recruitment process for both DRs and DPs was a composite one aimed at filling newly created posts, and the seniority should be fixed from the date of appointment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, stating that the seniority of the DPs, who were appointed earlier, was justified under Rule 27. The court emphasized that the main provision of Rule 27, which fixes seniority from the date of appointment, should prevail, and the proviso applies only when two selections are for the same category. The appeals by the DRs were dismissed, and the seniority lists published by the Commercial Taxes Department were validated.