9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2003 were decided by a common order dated 12.1.2004. In its determination the CAT, Ahmedabad held, that seniority of direct recruits would have to be determined with reference to the date of their actual appointment. The implicit effect of the aforesaid determination was, that the date of arising of the direct recruit vacancies, or the date of initiation of the process of recruitment, or the date when the Staff Selection Commission had made recommendations for the filling up direct recruit vacancies, were inconsequential for determination of seniority of direct recruits. 3. The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12.1.2004 was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Gujarat High Court"), in Union of India and Ors. v. N.R. Parma and Ors. (Special Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2004). Direct recruits separately filed Special Civil Application No. 1512 of 2004 (Virender Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). The Gujarat High Court by its order dated 17.8.2004, upheld the order of the CAT, Ahmedabad, dated 12.1.2004. 4. The Union of India assailed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court dated 17.8.2004 before this Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chalana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 275 of 2002 (Bhanwar Lal Soni and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 293 of 2002 (Ranjeet Singh Rathore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), were filed by promotee Income Tax Inspectors before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT, Jodhpur"), to assail the seniority-list wherein direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, though appointed later, were placed higher in the seniority-list, i.e., above promotee Income Tax Inspectors, merely because they occupied vacancies of earlier years. The CAT, Jodhpur allowed the claim of the promotee Income Tax Inspectors by a common order dated 8.9.2003. The order passed by the CAT, Jodhpur dated 8.9.2003 was assailed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Rajasthan High Court") by filing four writ petitions (DBC WP No. 785 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. R.K. Bothra and Ors.; DBC WP No. 786 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. Banwari Lal Soni and Ors.; DBC WP No. 787 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Prasad Sharma and Ors.; DBC WP No. 788 of 2004, Union of India and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, the SSC issued advertisements in May/June, 1993, inviting applications for appointment by way of direct recruitment, against vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors of the year 1993-94. To fill up these vacancies, the SSC held the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income Tax Examination, 1993. All the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006 Responded to the aforesaid advertisement. The said Petitioners, were in the first instance, subjected to a written test conducted by the SSC in December, 1993. Thereafter, those who qualified the written examination, were invited for an interview/viva-voce. All the Petitioners appeared for the viva-voce test conducted in October 1994. On 21/28.1.1995 the SSC declared the result of the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income-Tax Examination, 1993. The names of the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006, figured in the list of successful candidates. After verification of their character and antecedents, and after they were subjected to a medical fitness examination, the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006 were issued offers of appointment as Income Tax Inspectors in the Department of Income Tax. All the Petitioners joined the cadre of Income Tax Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be entitled to any actual arrears of monetary benefits till the date of actual order of promotion. The actual monetary benefits are prospective, only from the date of order of promotion and consequent date of assuming charge. 2. In the circumstances of the case, the official Respondents are granted three months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to comply with these directions. 3. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. On 10.9.1999 a clarificatory order was passed by the CAT, Principal Bench. A relevant extract, of the aforesaid clarificatory order, is being reproduced hereunder: 2. But, on reconsideration and on second thought, we feel that there is no necessity to allow this M.A. and to recall our order dt.8.9.99 for the simple reason that our order will not prejudice the case of the private Respondents in any way. What we have stated in our order dt.8.9.1999 is that the official Respondents should strictly enforce the seniority list dt.8.2.99 and then on that basis hold review DPC and consider the claim of the applicants for promotion. This order we have passed on the basis of the admission made by the official Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, and other connected original applications (Krishan Kanahiya and Ors. v. Union of India, OA No. 676 of 1999; H.P.S. Kharab and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 387 of 1999; Muneesh Rajani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 964 of 1999) by a common order. In paragraph 7 of its order the CAT, Principal Bench, narrated the issues which came up for its determination as under: 7. The short question which is posed for our consideration is as to what is the precise date on which direct recruits can be considered for seniority vis-`-vis the promotees. Whether it is (i) the date on which the vacancies have arisen; (ii) the date when the same have been notified by the department by sending requisitions to the Staff Selection Commission; (iii) the date on which selection by the Commission is made; (iv) the date when the selection is reported to the department; or (v) the date on which the direct recruit actually assumes office. During the course of hearing of the aforementioned original applications, it was acknowledged by the rival parties, that the questions under consideration had to be determined with reference to instructions contained in two office memoranda dated 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment, remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987. The seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 9. P1 2. D1 10. D1 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 14. D3 7. P4 15. P4 8. P5 16. D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7 It is not necessary to make a reference to the subsequent office memorandum of 3.7.1986 as the same is nothing but a repetition of the instructions contained in the office memorandum dated 7.2.1986. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties at considerable length and we are of the view that as far as inter se seniority is concerned, the same has to be based on the vacancies ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f by the Delhi High Court by a common order dated 25.9.2002, whereby, the order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, was set aside with the following observations: 23. Having regard to the fact that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is absolutely cryptic and no cogent or valid reason has been assigned in support thereof, and as the contentions raised before the Tribunal as also before us have not been considered at all, we are of the opinion that for determination of the crucial questions where for, it may be necessary, for the parties to adduce further evidence, the matter may be remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh and the parties may bring on record such other or further materials as may be directed by the learned Tribunal. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we would request the learned Tribunal to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible. These writ petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions without any order as to costs. 15. Consequently, the matters referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India and Ors.), OA No. 124 of 2004 (S.K. Puri-II and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.). The CAT, Principal Bench, by a common order dated 22.9.2004 allowed the claim preferred by the promotee Income Tax Officers, and as such, quashed the seniority list dated 17.7.2003. The direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, who were Respondents in the original applications referred to above, assailed the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, dated 22.9.2004, before the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 3446-49 of 2005 (Pritpal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). As already mentioned hereinabove, the aforesaid writ petitions were transferred to this Court and assigned TC (C) No. 91 of 2006. 17. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the rival parties agreed, that the seniority dispute between the promotee and direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors of the Income Tax Department was liable to be determined on the basis of office memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, read with the clarificatory office memoranda and office notes. It is important to notice, before embarking upon the claim of the rival parties, that none of the parties have assailed the vires o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kept (or remained) unfilled during the process of selection, and the unfilled vacancies, had to be filled up through "later" examinations or selections. For the determination of seniority, in the contingency wherein the process of recruitment resulted in filling the vacancies earmarked for the two sources of recruitment, the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, expressed in the OM dated 22.11.1959 remained unaltered. But where the vacancies could not be filled up, and unfilled vacancies had to be filled up "later" through a subsequent process of selection, the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, was modified. 20. Since it is the case of the rival parties before us, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 is the principal instruction, on the basis whereof the present controversy is to be settled, the same is being extracted hereunder in its entirety. The 7 February, 1986. Office Memorandum Subject: General Principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services. As the Ministry of Finance etc. are aware, the General Principles for determination of seniori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uture, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unitended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. Thus, if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll take effect from 1st March 1986. Seniority already determined in accordance with the existing principles on the date of issue of these orders will not be reopened. In respect of vacancies for which recruitment action has already been taken, on the date of issue of these orders either by way of direct recruitment or promotion, seniority will continue to be determined in accordance with the principle in force prior to the issue of this O.M. 8. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the Attached/Subordinate Offices under them to whom the General Principles of Seniority contained in O.M. dated 22.12.1959 are applicable within 2 week as these orders will be effective from the next month. Sd/- Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India (Emphasis is ours) Since the OM dated 7.2.1986 would primarily constitute the determination of the present controversy, it is considered just and appropriate to render an analysis thereof. The following conclusions are apparent to us, from a close examination of the OM dated 7.2.1986: (a) Paragraph 2 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 first records the existing manner of determining inter se seniority between d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination(s) or selection(s). Essentially the "later" examination(s) or selection(s) should be perceived as those conducted to fill up the carried forward vacancies, i.e., vacancies which could not be filled up, when the examination or selection for the concerned recruitment year was originally/first conducted. This change it was clarified, was made to stop direct recruits of "later" years, from gaining "... unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position....", as High Courts and the Supreme Court had "...brought out the inappropriateness...." thereof. It is therefore apparent, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 partially modified the "rotation of quotas" principle in the determination of inter se seniority originally expressed in the OM dated 22.11.1959. The OM dated 7.2.1986, provided that the "rota" (rotation of quotas) would be adhered to "...only to the extent of available direct recruits and promotees....", i.e., for promotee and direct recruit vacancies which could be filled up through the original/first process of examination or selection conducted for the recruitment year in which the vacancies had arisen. (c) For the vacancies remaining unfilled when the same wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration provided in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 fully substantiates the analysis of the OM dated 7.2.1986 recorded in the foregoing sub-paragraphs. In fact, the conclusions drawn in the foregoing sub-paragraphs have been drawn, keeping in mind the explanatory illustration narrated in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986. (h) In paragraph 6 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 it was asserted, that the general principles for determining seniority in the OM dated 22.11.1959 were being "modified" to the extent expressed (in the OM dated 7.2.1986). The extent of modification contemplated by the OM dated 7.2.1986 has already been delineated in the foregoing sub-paragraphs. Para 6 therefore leaves no room for any doubt, that the OM dated 22.11.1959 stood "amended" by the OM dated 7.2.1986 on the issue of determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraphs. The said amendment was consciously carried out by the Department of Personnel and Training, with the object of remedying the inappropriateness of direct recruits of "later" examination(s) or selection(s) becoming senior to promotees with long years of service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be) in the subsequent year. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of a grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and a assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the year 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987, the seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 9. P1 2. D1 10. D1 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 14. D3 7. P4 15. P4 8. P5 16. D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7 2.4.3 In order to help the appointing authorities in determining the number of vacancies to be filled during a year under each of the methods of recruitment prescribed, a Vacancy Register giving a running account of the vacancies arising and being filled from year to year may be maintained in the proforma enclosed. 2.4.4 With a view to curbing any tendency of underreporting/suppressing the vacancies to be notified to the concerned authorities for direct recruitment, it is clarified that promotees wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99 (hereinafter referred to as, "the O.N. dated 20.12.1999"). Undoubtedly, an office note has no legal sanction, and as such, is not enforceable in law. Yet an office note is certainly relevant for determining the logic and process of reasoning which prevailed at the relevant point of time. These would aid in the interpretation of the binding office memoranda, only when the language of the office memoranda is ambiguous. Ofcourse, only where there is no conflict between the two i.e., the office note and the office memoranda sought to be interpreted. In the aforesaid background, and for the aforesaid limited purpose, reference is being made to the O.N. dated 20.12.1999. The same is being reproduced hereunder: Department of Personnel and Training Estt. (D) Section Ref. Preceding notes. It is not clear whether the instructions contained in our O.M. dated 07.02.1986 has been interpreted correctly. It is clarified that on a perusal of our O.M. dated 22.12.1959 read with our O.M. dated 07.02.1986 it will be clear that the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees will have to be fixed by following the principle of rotation of quotas prescribed for them in the recruitment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy stated the DR process takes more than a year. Hence, as already stated initiation of action for recruitment in sufficient. It is not clear whether our O.M. of 07.02.1986 has been interpreted correctly on the above line by the Deptt. of Revenue. Hence the above position may be suitably incorporated in the para-wise comments prepared by them and it may be modified accordingly. Subject to this, the parawise comments appear to be generally in order. It is however for the Department of Revenue to ensure the correctness of the factual position mentioned therein. Deptt. of Revenue may please see. Sd/- (K. Muthu Kumar) Under Secretary /DIR E 1/99 20/12 Dir (E-1) The clarification given above needs to be adhered to as we have been consistently advising on the aforesaid lines. Any other interpretation of the relevant instructions would be illogical. Sd/- DIR (E-1) 21.12.99 (Emphasis is ours) The logic and the process of reasoning, emerging from the O.N. dated 20.12.1999, as they appear to us, are analysed below: (a) Only where the appointing authority has not been able to fill up the vacancies earmarked for direct recruits/promotees, with reference to the requisiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the candidate join only in 1990, since the action for recruitment was initiated in 1986-1987 itself merely because the process of recruitment took so long for which the candidates cannot be blamed and since the responsibility for the delay in completing the process of recruitment squarely lies with the administration, it would not be appropriate to deprive the candidates of their due seniority of 1986-87. Consequently, if action was initiated during the Recruitment Year 1986-1987 even if it culminates in the joining by the selected candidates only in 1990, they will get seniority of 1986-1987. This applies equally to DRs as well as promotees. In other words, if such DRs of 1986-1987 ultimately join in 1990 yet they will be rotated with promotees of 1986-87. As regards point (1) on page 19/N, it is clarified that "initiation of action for recruitment/initiation of recruitment process" would refer to the date of sending the requisition to the recruiting authority for a particular Recruitment Year in question. Points (2) & (3) are the concern of Estt.(B). As regards point (4), it is clarified that as already stated the concept of initiation of action for recruitment is applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter referred to as, "the letter dated 11.5.2004"). The aforesaid letter is being reproduced below: New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004 To, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), CHANDIGARH Subject: Fixation of inter-se seniority of DR and Promotee Income Tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOP&T in r/o OM dated 3.7.87 Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter F. No. CC/CHD/2003-04/935 dated 4.12.2003 on the above subject and to say that the matter has been examined in consultation with DOP&T and necessary clarification in the matter is given as under: Point/querry raised Clarification Whether direct recruit inspectors should be given seniority of the year in which selection process initiated or vacancy occurred or otherwise 'It is clarified by DOP&T that Direct Recruits' seniority vis-à-vis the promotees is reckoned from the year in which they are actually recruited. DRs cannot claim seniority of the year in which the vacancies had arisen. The question of grant of seniority to DRs of the period when they were not even in service does not arise.' 3. The representations may please be disposed off accordingly. Yours faithfully, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income tax Department - regarding. Sir, I am directed to say that a number of OAs/WPs are pending/under adjudication in the various benches of CAT and High Courts on the above subject. The Board has been taking a consistent stand in all those cases that the policy as laid down in Sanjeev Mahajan's case (pertaining to CCIT, Delhi Charge), which was finalized in consultation with DOP&T and the Ministry of Law would prevail and that seniority of DRs would be reckoned with reference to date of initiation of recruitment process in their case. 2. Subsequently on a query raised by CCIT, Chandigarh on an issue relating to the treatment to be given to the promotee Inspectors, who would face reversion on account of refixation of seniority as per DOP&T/Ministry of Law's advice, the Board issued a clarification vide letter of even number, dated 11.5.2004, which created an adverse situation before the Gujarat High Court in a related case. As such this clarification was held in abeyance vide letter dated 27.07.2004 till further orders. 3. The matter has been reexamined and it has been decided that the stand taken/finalized by the Board in the case of Sanjeev Mahajan would hold go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adequate number of direct recruits does not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of available direct recruits and the promotees. 3. Some references have been received seeking clarifications regarding the term 'available' used in the preceding para of the OM dated 3.7.1986. It is hereby clarified that while the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees is to be fixed on the basis of the rotation of quota of vacancies, the year of availability, both in the case of direct recruits as well as the promotees, for the purpose of rotation and fixation of seniority, shall be the actual year of appointment after declaration of results/selection and completion of pre-appointment formalities as prescribed. It is further clarified that when appointments against unfilled vacancies are made in subsequent year or years, either by direct recruitment or promotion, the persons so appointed shall not get seniority of any earlier year (viz. year of vacancy/panel or year in which recruitment process is initiated) but should get the seniority of the year in which they are appointed on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affect the merits of controversy before this Court. We have considered the instant submission. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel. If the OM dated 3.3.2008 was in the nature of an amendment, there may well have been merit in the submission. The OM dated 3.3.2008 is in the nature of a "clarification". Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. As such, a clarification always relates back to the date of the instrument which is sought to be clarified. In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reference may be made to the decision rendered by this Court in S.S. Garewal v. State of Punjab (1993) 3 234, wherein this Court had observed as under: 8... In the alternative, it was urged that the order dated April 8, 1980 could only have prospective operation with effect from the date of issue of the said order and the sub-roster indicated by the said order could be given effect to only from that date and on that basis the first post reserved for Scheduled Castes should go to B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 is in the nature of an amendment/modification. The Department of Personnel and Training consciously "amended" the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959, by the later OM dated 7.2.1986. The said amendment was consciously carried out, with the object of remedying the inappropriateness of direct recruits of later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. It is not the case of any of the parties before us, that the OM dated 7.2.1986, has ever been "amended" or "modified". It is therefore imperative to conclude, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 is binding for the determination of the issues expressed therein, and that, the same has the force of law. The OM dated 3.7.1986 is in the nature of consolidatory instruction, whereby, all earlier instructions issued from time to time were compiled together. This is apparent, not only from the subject of the aforesaid OM dated 3.7.1986, but also, the contents of paragraph 1 thereof. Paragraph 1 of the OM dated 3.7.1986, is being reproduced hereunder: Dated 3.7.86 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: SENIORITY-consolidated orders on The undersigned is directed to say that instructions have been issued by this Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 but also the OM dated 7.2.1986. We have already noticed, in an earlier part of the instant judgment, the essential ingredients of a "clarification" are, that it seeks to explain an unclear, doubtful, inexplicit or ambiguous aspect of an instrument, which is sought to be clarified or resolved through the "clarification". and that, it should not be in conflict with the instrument sought to be explained. It is in the aforesaid background, that we will examine the two queries posed in the preceding paragraph. We have already analysed the true purport of the OM dated 7.2.1986 (in paragraph 20 hereinabove). We have also recorded our conclusions with reference to the OM dated 3.7.1986 wherein we have duly taken into consideration the true purport of paragraph 2.4.2 contained in the OM dated 3.7.1986 (in paragraph 21 hereinabove). The aforesaid conclusions are not being repeated again for reasons of brevity. We have separately analysed the effect of the OM dated 3.3.2008 (in paragraph 26 of the instant judgment). It is not possible for us to conclude that the position expressed in the earlier office memoranda is unclear, doubtful, inexplicit or ambiguous. Certainly not on the subject sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liance was placed on Jagdish Ch. Patnaik and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0277/1998 : (1998) 4 SCC 456; Suraj Prakash Gupta and Ors. v. State of J&K and Anr. MANU/SC/0337/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 561; and Pawan Pratap Singh and Ors. v. Reevan Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0108/2011 : (2011) 3 SCC 267. 31. The seniority rule applied in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case (supra) has been extracted in paragraph 24 of the said judgment. The seniority rule in question, inter alia expressed, that seniority would be determined with reference to the date of recruitment. In Suraj Prakash Gupta's case (supra), the relevant seniority rule was extracted in paragraph 53 which provided, that seniority would be determined with reference to the date of first appointment. The rule itself expressed that the words "date of first appointment" would mean the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy. In Pawan Pratap Singh's case (supra) the question which arose for consideration, related to determination of inter se seniority between two sets of direct recruits. The first set comprised of vacancies advertised in 1987 which came to be filled up in 1994, and the second set compri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
