9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veral posts in Grade IV in each of the two Services contrary to the Rules till now as having been regularly appointed to the said posts in Grade IV under Rule 8(1)(a)(ii) and assign them seniority in the cadre with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the said posts. Even those promotees who have been selected in 1970, 1982 and 1984 shall be assigned seniority with effect from the date on which they commenced to officiate continuously in the posts prior to their selection. For purposes of seniority the dates of their selection shall be ignored . The direct recruits shall be given seniority with effect from the date on which their names were recommended by the Commission for appointment to such grade or post as provided in Clause (a) of Rule 9-C of the Rules. A seniority list of all the promotees and the direct recruits shall be prepared on the above basis treating the promotees as full members of the service with effect from the dates from which they are continuously officiating in the posts. [emphasis supplied] 2. The question for our consideration is whether the expression posts used by this Court in the above quoted directions means c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narender Chadha's case on February 11, 1986. The direct recruits filed a review petition which was dismissed. The directions of this Court were implemented and a seniority list of Grade IV of the Indian Statistical Service (hereinafter called the Service) was issued on May 8, 1986. Consequent promotions to Grade III were made vide Notification dated May 22, 1986. The direct recruits in Grade IV of the Service challenged the seniority list and the promotions before the Tribunal on the ground that the seniority list was in violation of the directions of this Court in Narender Chadha's case. It was contended on the interpretation of this Court's judgment that the promotees who officiated against cadre posts in the Service, alone, are entitled to the benefit of the said period towards seniority and those who officiated against Ex-cadre posts are not entitled to such benefit. 6. The promotees and the Union of India contended before the Tribunal that this Court in Narender Chadha's case based its conclusions on the reasoning that the promotees were holding posts in the Service for about 15 years and as such they could not be treated as ad hoc appointees. this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules on November 1, 1961 there were 116 posts in Grade IV and total of 185 posts in the Service. All the Rules were noticed and after reproducing Rule 8 which provides for appointments to the Service, it was observed as under: Although Rule 8 provided that not less that 75 per cent of the vacancies in Grade IV should be filled up by direct recruitments...no direct recruitment was resorted to till about the year 1968. In the meanwhile a large number of persons in the feeder posts were appointed to the posts in Grade IV from time to time from the year 1962 onwards although the orders promoting them stated that they had been promoted only temporarily. It is not disputed that all those promotees have been holding those posts continuously till now without being reverted to the feeder posts from which they had been promoted. Some have retired from those posts on attaining the age of superannuation. 10. Thereafter the Bench noticed the fact that large number of posts meant for the direct recruits were manned by the promotees for a period of more than 15 years. The Bench observed as under: The position in the Indian Statistical Service was more or less the same. As against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication to the cadre and ex-cadre posts during the period from 1961 till 1984. It is clear from the minute factual details adverted to by the Bench, that this Court gave benefit of total officiation to the promotees whether against a cadre post or a non cadre post. The problem faced by this Court in Narender Chadha's case was noticed as under: But we are faced in this case with the problem of resolving conflicts which have arisen on account of a violent departure made by the Government from the Rules of recruitment by allowing those who were appointed contrary to the Rules to hold the posts continuously over a long period of time. The question is whether after such a long period it is open to the Government to place them in seniority at a place lower than the place held by persons who were directly recruited after they had been promoted, and whether it would not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution if the Government is allowed to do so. Promotions of officers have been made in this case deliberately and in vacancies which have lasted for a long time.... It is significant that neither the Government has issued orders of reversion to their former posts nor has anybo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated at par with other regularly appointed officers. Is there any justification to deprive them the benefit of 15 years of service on the ground that they were working against the ex-cadre posts. It was projected before this Court that the appointments to Grade IV of all the promotees whether working against cadre post or ex-cadre posts were contrary to the Rules. In that situation where is the justification, after all the promotees are regularised by this Court, to hold that only those who are regularised while working against cadre posts, are to be given the benefit of such regularisation towards seniority. Doing that would be wholly arbitrary. The Tribunal itself observed: We are conscious of the fact that deprivation of the benefits of seniority in respect of continuous officiation in ex cadre posts may not be justified on grounds of equity and discrimination. But in the present case, we are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal is not competent to widen its scope to extend the benefit of continuous officiation to incumbents who are not covered by the said judgment. 13. But on the basis of patently illogical reasoning the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not for a short period intended to meet some emergent or unforeseen circumstances. Clause (b) of Rule 9C of the Rules which deals with the question of seniority promotees becomes irrelevant in the circumstances of this case as regards the promotees who have been holding the posts from a long time as stated above. [emphasis supplied] 15. this Court has, in simple language and plain words, expressed its verdict in the 'quote' above. It needs no clarification much less any interpretation. It only needed a judicial-look which the Tribunal failed to do. 16. Regarding the promotees who were appointed in their quota this Court observed as under: We are aware that the view we are taking may upset the inter se seniority between those promotees who were included in the Select List of 1970,1982 and 1984 and those who were included later on or who have not been included at all till now. The existence of this possibility should not deter us from adopting a uniform rule in the case of all promotees and direct recruits to adjust the equities amongst them as regards their relative seniority in the light of the violent departure made by the Government both as regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
