A.K. Bose And Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3931 Del

                                    Reportable
*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 [W.P. (C) 7137 OF 2003]

                                           RESERVED ON: 14.07.2011
%                                         PRONOUNCED ON: 12.8.2011


A.K. BOSE AND ANR.                               . . . PETITIONERS

                               Through:    Mr. N.D. Kaushik, Advocate with
                                           Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate.


                                    VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                . . .RESPONDENTS

                               Through:    Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate

CORAM :-

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

          1.         Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be
                     allowed to see the Judgment?
          2.         To be referred to the Reporter or not?
          3.         Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
                     Digest?


A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Vide impugned orders dated 17th September, 1999, the

Central Administrative Tribunal has decided two O.As (O.A.

1051/1994 and O.A. 709/94) in which common grievance

pertaining to the disputes of seniority was raised by the

applicants. In O.A. 1051/1994 one Sh. A.K. Chaturvedi was the

applicant who had impleaded 11 respondents. Respondent no.1

was Union of India and respondents no. 2 to 11 were the private

parties whose seniority was challenged. Other O.A. was filed by

Sh. K.S. Chhatwal against the same very respondents. Both of

them had challenged the validity of seniority list issued by the

Union of India vide memorandum dated 21st January, 1991

revising the earlier final seniority list issued vide memorandum

dated 27th February, 1989. Vide the revised seniority list the

seniority possession of these two applicants was brought down

from Sl. No. 84 to 93 in the case of A.K. Chaturvedi in O.A.

1051/1992 and Sl. No. 82 to 89 in the case of K.S. Chhatwal in

O.A. 709/1994 respectively.

2. The Tribunal accepted their prayer, as a result impugned

seniority list dated 21st January, 1991 was quashed and earlier

seniority list dated 27th February, 1989 was restored. The

petitioners in this petition were the respondents who naturally felt

aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix need not be stated in detail having

regard to the narrow scope of controversy that needs to be

decided in this writ petition. The petitioners no. 2 & 3 were

working as Assistants at the relevant time. Next promotion in

the cadre is to the post of Section Officer which is governed by

Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitments, Cadre and Service)

Rules, 1975. As per these Rules, 60% posts are to be filled up by

promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 40% by

Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). It is not in

dispute that as Assistants both the respondents no.2 and 3 were

senior to the petitioners.

4. Since the vacancies of Section Officer under both categories

were available, process for promotion under two categories was

started almost simultaneously. For promotion under 60% quota

(based on seniority cum fitness) DPC was held on 2nd and 3rd July,

1986. For filling up the post by LDCE, test as per the Rules was

conducted on 12th May, 1986. Those who passed the test were

interviewed on 9th July, 1987. Merit list on the basis of test and

interview was prepared on 14th July, 1986 and the list was

approved on 1st August, 1986. In this manner, the selection

process through LDCE was completed on 1st August, 1986. Insofar

as promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness is concerned,

nothing more than DPC was required which was held on 2nd and

3rd July, 1986, as pointed out above. Since both the process had

been completed almost contemporaneously, the promotion orders

were issued on the same day.

5. Insofar as respondents no. 2 & 3 are concerned, they were

considered in the promotion quota of 60% under the criteria

seniority-cum- fitness. Insofar as petitioners are concerned, they

appeared in LDCE quota. Both the petitioners and the

respondents no. 2 and 3 were found qualified in their respective

channels.

6. In the promotion orders issued the respondent no.2 and 3

were shown above the petitioners. Thereafter, seniority listed

dated 27th February, 1989 was prepared wherein these two

respondents were placed senior to the petitioners herein; for that

matter, those persons promoted consequent upon the

recommendation of DPC held on 14th July, 1986 and senior as

Assistant were shown as senior to those promoted under 40%

quota on the basis of LDCE, who were otherwise junior as

Assistant. In the said seniority list the respondent no.2 was at

rank 84 whereas the respondent no.3 at rank 96 respectively. The

petitioners no. 1 and 2 were placed at sl. Not. 94 and 96

respectively.

7. Some representations were, however, filed against the

aforesaid seniority list. These representations were rejected vide

memorandum dated 4th July, 1989 passed by the respondent no.1

However thereafter another revised seniority list 21st January, 21st

January, 1991 was issued disturbing the list position contained in

earlier list dated 27th February, 1989. The position of respondent

no.2 was downgraded from rank 84 to 93 and R-3 82 to 89. The

petitioners, on the other hand, were up graded to the rank of 75

and 80 respectively. Before issuing the revised seniority list, no

notice was issued to the respondents no.2 & 3. It was in these

circumstances, the two respondents, filed the O.A.

8. Admittedly, there are no specific rules fixing the seniority

among the promotees under seniority-cum-fitness quota and

those who get promotion under LDCE. In the absence of any such

rules, when common order of promotions were issued, naturally

the seniority in the feeder cadre i.e. Assistant had to be

maintained. As pointed out above, respondents no. 2 & 3 were

senior to the petitioners as Assistants. Even otherwise, if one goes

by the chronology of selection, the DPC for the respondent was

held on 2nd and 3rd July, 1986 whereas DPC for the petitioners was

held on 9th July, 1986 and the merit list of those candidates who

qualified in the said quota was prepared on 14th July, 1987 and

minutes of the said DPC were approved on 1st August, 1986. On

this basis also, the respondents no. 2 and 3 were to be treated as

senior vide memorandum dated 19th January, 1988 issued by the

Government provides for the same.

9. The contention of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal

was that seniority of Section Officers from both the quota had to

be drawn on 1:1 basis. We do not find force in this contention

which is rightly rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that

promotion orders for both the categories had been issued on the

same dated i.e. 14th August, 1986. The ratio of 1:1 as claimed by

the petitioners is not supported by any rules or any other

discernable criteria. On this ground alone, we are of the opinion

that the petition filed by the petitioner needs to be dismissed as

we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by

the Tribunal though the Tribunal has given many other

justifications.

10. We thus, dismiss this writ petition. However, there shall be

no order as to costs.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE AUGUST 12,2011 skb