* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.5924 of 1999
Judgment reserved on: August 25, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: September 9, 2009
1. Smt. M.R. Tshering
W/o Shri P.D. Tshering
R/o B-78, Nanakpura, New Delhi.
2. Shri P.D. Tshering
S/o Shri L. Tshering
R/o B-78, Nanakpura, New Delhi.
3. Shri V.K. Tiwary
S/o Shri G.P. Tiwary
R/o Residence of DPS (Aizwal)
Aizwal HO Complex
Aizwal, Mizoram. ...Petitioners
Through Mr. Manu Mridul with
Mr. Anant K. Vatsya, Advs.
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to the Government of India
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chairman
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 1 of 9
3. Secretary to Government of India
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pension
North Block, New Delhi.
4. Smt. Anju Nigam
W/o Shri V. Tiwari
Joint Director, Postal Staff College
Ghaziabad.
5. Smt. Sharda Sampath
W/o Shri M. Sampath
Director Postal Services
Vijaywada, A.P.
6. Shri M. Sampath
S/o Shri Murugan
Director Finance
Department of Telecommunications
Iluru, A.P. ...Respondents
Through Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. for
Respondent No.1.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Adv.
for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for
Respondent No.2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 2 of 9
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 7 th April, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2225/1997.
2. At the outset, it needs to be stated that before the Tribunal there were six applicants but only three of them have preferred this writ petition.
3. The Petitioners participated in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) in 1987. They were selected and allotted the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) and/or the Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS). We have been told, and this is not in dispute, that neither the IDES nor the IDAS is a participating service for the foundation course held in the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie. Consequently, none of the Petitioners were called to participate in the foundation course which commenced on 26th August, 1988.
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 3 of 9
4. Subsequently, it appears that candidates from other services who were better placed in merit than the Petitioners did not join the service allotted to them with the result that the Petitioners moved up the ladder and were offered the Indian Postal Service (IPS). This offer was given to the Petitioners sometime in September, 1988/December, 1988 which was in any case after the commencement of the foundation course in the Academy.
5. The Petitioners were required to accept the offer (which they did) and then they joined the Postal Staff College on 12th January, 1989 for probationary training.
6. On joining the IPS, the Petitioners were given their date of entry into service as 12th January, 1989. The Petitioners were appointed in the Junior Time Scale and after putting in four years of service in this scale, they were promoted, on the basis of their seniority, to the Senior Time Scale. Upto this point, there is no controversy or any dispute. However, it is only when the case of the Petitioners came up for consideration for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 4 of 9 that a controversy regarding their date of entry in the service surfaced. According to the Indian Postal Service (Group A) Rules, 1987 appointment to the JAG was to be made by selection on merit from amongst officers of the Senior Time Scale having five years regular service in that grade ( + four years service in the Junior Time Scale). The Departmental Promotions Committee had a cut-off date of 1st October of the concerned year for considering the promotion of the Petitioners in view of an Office Memorandum dated 19 th July, 1989. Since the Petitioners fell short of the eligibility period by a few months, they could not be considered for promotion to the JAG as on 1 st October, 1997.
7. According to the Petitioners, since some other persons of the same batch were given their date of entry in the service with effect from 26th August, 1988 they were considered for promotion and were placed in the JAG. Resultantly, the Petitioners lost out by one year vis-à-vis their batchmates and were required to compete for the JAG along with those persons who had passed the CSE one year after the Petitioners, that is, with the batch of 1989.
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 5 of 9
8. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners preferred an Original Application before the Tribunal in which it was prayed that the Petitioners be deemed to have been appointed in the Junior Time Scale on and from 26th August, 1988 and to direct the Respondents to make suitable amendments/corrections with regard to their date of entry into the service. The other prayers regarding promotion to the Senior Time Scale and the JAG are merely consequential to the principal prayer made by the Petitioners.
9. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the case of the Petitioners and that is how they are now before us.
10. The Tribunal noted that the Petitioners were not initially allotted the IPS. In fact, they were allotted either the IDES or the IDAS, neither of which services participated in the foundation course which commenced in the Academy on 26th August, 1988. In other words, those candidates who had participated and were declared successful in the CSE held in 1987 but were allotted IDES and IDAS could not undertake the foundation course in the Academy in Mussoorie which WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 6 of 9 commenced on 26th August, 1988. There is no dispute on this fact.
11. It is only fortuitous that some persons who were better placed in merit than the Petitioners dropped out from joining the civil services with the result that the Petitioners were given an offer of appointment to the IPS in September/December, 1988 which is after the commencement of the foundation course. The Petitioners could not join the foundation course midway and so they did not participate in it. Consequently, they were not entitled to claim their date of entry in the service as on the date of commencement of the foundation course but they were entitled to claim their date of entry into the service with effect from 12 th January, 1989 when they actually started undergoing the probationary training.
12. In order to have their date of entry into the service antedated, the Petitioners relied upon an Office Memorandum dated 7 th January, 1993 which deals with the seniority of Group A service probationers who abstain from joining training to appear in the next CSE. A perusal of the Office Memorandum makes it clear that it was issued to take care of a depression in seniority of probationers who joined the service late WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 7 of 9 for the reason that these persons were desirous of appearing in the next CSE. The relevant extract of the Office Memorandum in this regard reads as follows:
"In the light of CAT Judgment this Deptt. has reviewed the instructions issued earlier referred to above for amending rules applicable to services recruitment to which it made through the C.S.E. for depression of seniority of probationers joining service late. It has been decided that a candidate who obtained permission to abstain from joining training to appear at the next CSE will retain his original seniority. This decision will be applicable to probationers appointed to different services on the basis of the C.S.E. held in 1987 onwards. If the relevant Services Rules has already been amended to depress the seniority of such probationers in light of instructions issued by this Deptt. earlier, necessary step may kindly be taken immediately for restoring the seniority by carrying out suitable further amendment with retrospective effect wherever necessary." (emphasis supplied)
13. It is quite clear from the above that the Office Memorandum is not at all applicable to the case of the Petitioners because they did not seek exemption from participating in the foundation course for sitting in the next CSE - they were not even invited to participate in the foundation course since they were allotted a service which was not participating in the foundation course.
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 8 of 9
14. In view of the above, whichever way the problem is looked at, the Petitioners have made out no case for interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The date of entry of the Petitioners in the service must remain 12 th January, 1989 and cannot be antedated to 28th August, 1988.
15. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
September 9, 2009 A.K. PATHAK, J
ncg
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
WP (C) No.5924/1999 Page 9 of 9