9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emed 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 - W.P.(C) Nos. 2073 & 2319 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2013 - PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND V. Kameswar Rao, JJ. For the Appellant : S.S. Tiwari. For the Respondent : P.K. Singh and R.V. Sinha. ORDER:- Pradeep Nandrajog, J. - Since the above captioned 2 petitions raise common questions the same are being decided together. 2. In the Department of Company Affairs, there exists a specialized service, namely, the Indian Company Law Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de-I, Grade-III and Grade-IV in CCLS were re-designated as Senior Administrative Grade, Junior Administrative Grade, Senior Time Scale and Junior Time Scale respectively. Thus, the hierarchical structure of CCLS after the cadre review was as follows: - Senior Administrative Grade (Super Time Grade) - Junior Administrative Grade (Grade-I) - Senior Time Scale (Grade-III) - Junior Time Scale (Grade-IV). 7. Needless to state, the merger/cadre review of grades in CCLS necessitated amendment of CCLS Rules, 1965. However, it was only on April 25, 1997 that the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India repealed CCLS Rules, 1965 and notified Central Company Law Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCLS Rules, 1997'). It would be relevant to note the following provisions of the CCLS Rules, 1997: "1. Short title and commencement: (1) These rules may be called the Central Company Law Service Rules, 1997. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette. 2. Definitions: In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) 'Approved service' in relation to any grade means the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being OAs Nos.145/1997 and 272/1997. In O.A.No.145/1997, S.P. Vashishtha challenged the Presidential order dated July 12, 1990 merging Grade-II with Grade-I as also the seniority list dated November 15, 1996 issued on the basis of said merger order. In O.A. No.272/1997 S.P. Vashishtha challenged the action of the department in effecting promotions to the Senior Administrative Grade on the basis of eligibility criteria of having rendered eight years' approved service in the Grade-I prescribed in CCLS Rules, 1997. Additionally, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2307/2002, M.L. Sharma, another officer working in Legal Branch of CCLS who had rendered more than five but less than eight years approved service in Grade-I, also filed an application being O.A. No.428/1997 before the Tribunal challenging the action of the department of making promotions to the Senior Administrative Grade on the basis of eligibility criteria prescribed in CCLS Rules, 1997. 12. Vide judgment dated October 03, 1997 the Tribunal decided the aforesaid three original applications together. 13. On the issue of legality of the order dated July 12, 1990 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requirement of eight years approved service contained in rule that was notified subsequent to the date when the vacancies arose, and a review DPC will have to be held in accordance with the old rules wherein the requirement of eligibility was five years approved service. The respondents shall hold the DPC/review DPC in accordance with old rules and applying principle that the recruitment rules applicable shall be the one which are available at the time when the vacancies arose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases has re-iterated the valuable principle. Even in the latest case of Goyal, this principle has been reiterated." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. On the issue of legality of the seniority list dated November 15, 1996 issued by the department, the Tribunal held as under: "9. The next issue that comes up for resolution is whether the seniority list issued by the respondent in both the Branches namely Accounts as well as Legal Branch consisting of the officers of JAG/Grade-I is correct or not. It goes without saying that since the respondents had issued the merger order on 12.7.1990, as stated above, the officers who have been working in Grade-II will have to be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order itself and thereafter only proceed to hold the review DPc/DPC for filling the post of SAG." (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Be it noted here that neither the petitioners nor the department challenged the aforesaid judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal and thus the same i.e. the judgment dated October 03, 1997 attained finality. 17. Pursuant thereto, on October 22, 1997 the department issued a separate seniority list(s) of the officers working in Junior Administrative Grade (Grade-I) in the Accounts and Legal branches of CCLS in terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal. Both the petitioners made representations to the department against the said provisional seniority list but subsequently withdrew the same vide their letters dated January 01, 1998. On January 28, 1998 the department finalized the aforesaid provisional list. 18. On May 19, 1998 the department conducted a review DPC for filling up the vacancies which had arisen in the Senior Administrative Grade. Significantly, the names of the petitioners were not included in the zone of consideration for said vacancies. 19. Aggrieved by the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the same was not carried out in accordance with the relevant Recruitment Rules when the said ground was not taken by them before the Tribunal in the earlier OAs filed by them; and (iv) The petitioners cannot be allowed to question the action of the department in effecting promotion of the officers who were working in Grade-II on July 12, 1990 by dwelling upon the concept of 'approved service' when such officers were treated to have been working in the Junior Administrative Grade/Grade-I with effect from January 01, 1986 on account of merger of Grade-II with Grade-I/Junior Administrative Grade which was effective from January 01, 1986, particularly when such merger was upheld by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated October 03, 1997 and the same i.e. the judgment dated October 03, 1997 has attained finality. 21. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the above captioned petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. At the hearing of the writ petition(s), learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions advanced before the Tribunal and thus we do not re-note the same since we have already noted hereinabove the contentions which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lfilled the eligibility criteria of having rendered five years of approved service in the Junior Administrative Grade prescribed in the CCLS Rules, 1965. Most significantly, the Tribunal held as under: "It goes without saying that since the respondents had issued the merger order on 12.7.1990, as stated above, the officers who have been working in Grade-II will have to be treated as those working in JAG w.e.f. 1.1.1986 The seniority list will have to be amended as per this order and consider all persons who have been holding Grade-II as on 12.7.1990 shall be considered to have been holding the post of Grade-I w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or w.e.f. the date they joined the posts subsequently but prior to 12.7.1990." 30. As already noted hereinabove, neither the petitioners nor the department had challenged the aforesaid judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal. 31. Thereafter on October 22, 1997 the department issued a provisional seniority list of the officers working in the Junior Administrative Grade/Grade-I in terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated October 03, 1997 passed by the Tribunal, in that, the department fixed the date of appointment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the definition of 'approved service' implies that the officer concerned should have rendered 'actual' period or periods of service in that grade, rendered after selection. 37. If we accept the interpretation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the definition of 'approved service' we would be adding word 'actual' to said definition. It is well settled that the Courts cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. 38. 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/Grad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the time when the Selection Boards considered their cases of promotion for the respective posts. In this regard it is necessary to have a look to the definition of 'teaching experience' given in Rule 3(k) of the Rules, 1979, according to which, the period of service rendered in a teaching post or posts in any specialty or higher specialty in a teaching institution recognized by the Indian Medical Council is reckoned from the date of appointment to those posts, in consultation with the Commission. Therefore for the purposes of fulfillment of qualification of three years' 'teaching experience' for promotion, it is necessary that (1) a Junior Teacher/Lecturer should render service in a teaching post in a teaching institution, (ii) that teaching institution should be recognized by the Indian Medical Council and (iii) that three years period of service should be counted from the date of appointment made only in consultation with the Commission and not from the date of ad hoc appointment. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have further given stress that the period of deputation and unauthorized absence cannot be counted towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
