O. A. No. 3278 of 2010, M. A. Nos. 278/2011, 432/2011 with O. A. No. 4284 of 2010, M. A. No. 214/2011, O. A. No. 4285/2010, O. A. No. 382/2011, O. A. No. 384/2011, O. A. No. 403/2011, O. A. No. 4282/2010, O. A. No. 4283/2010, O. A. No. 4286/2010. Case: 1. Garima Singh W/o Vivek Bhardwaj, DVC as Deputy Director, Under Secretary of Government of India, at Ultadanga, Kolkata, 2. Syed Ekram Rizvi S/o Sohail Ahmed, 3. Shersha S/o C. M. Sheik Mohiddin, 4. Atya Nand S/o Ram Ekbal Vishwakarma, 5. Sanjay Kumar S/o Gopal Prasad, 6. Arvind Kumar S/o R. P. Jaiswal, 7. Anant Kishore Saran S/o L. K. Saran, 8. Sandeep Kumar Gupta S/o Arun Gupta, 9. Soumya Chattopadhyay S/o Rabiranjan Chattopadhyay Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi, 2. Union Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary, 3. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, 4. T. S. Negi, 5. Lalit Chauhan, 6. J. N. Basumatory, 7. S. S. Rana, 8. Mukesh Bhardwaj, 9. K. M. Saidharan, 10. R. C. Rajput, 11. Neelam Vohra, 12. S. K. Ghildiyal, 13. Anita Tipra, 14. Meetali Ghosh, 15. R. S. Punia, 16. Arun Gaur, 17. G. B. Upadhyay, 18. Arun Kumar Dhawan, 19. Sushma Kataria, 20. A. .... Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O. A. No. 3278 of 2010, M. A. Nos. 278/2011, 432/2011 with O. A. No. 4284 of 2010, M. A. No. 214/2011, O. A. No. 4285/2010, O. A. No. 382/2011, O. A. No. 384/2011, O. A. No. 403/2011, O. A. No. 4282/2010, O. A. No. 4283/2010, O. A. No. 4286/2010 |
| Judges | V. K. Bali (Chairman), L. K. Joshi (Vice Chairman) & Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 73, 162, 320(3)(c); T. N. State Housing Board Act, 1961 |
| Judgement Date | May 09, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
V. K. Bali (Chairman), (Principal Bench New Delhi)
-
Mrs. Garima Singh, applicant in Original Application No.3278 of 2010, is a direct recruit Section Officer belonging to Central Secretariat Service (hereinafter to be referred as CSS) through Civil Services Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission. Pitted against her as respondents are Section Officers who came to occupy the said post by way of promotion. There has been a long drawn litigation between direct recruit and promotee Section Officers who vied against each other for seniority, which litigation ended on 9th May, 1997, when the Apex Court in the matter of Surjit Singh & others v Union of India & others (Civil appeal No.3641-48 of 1997) directed interpolation of direct recruit Section Officers of various years in between the non-direct recruits. When the chapter as regards inter se seniority between the direct recruit and promotee Section Officers was closed, the direct recruits and promotees would not have anticipated that another serious litigation is awaiting them in the wings, which would engulf the whole cadre of Section Officers. Whereas, the first litigation culminating into the order of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, was as regards inter se seniority on the post of Section Officers, the one manifested by the present litigation is as regards precedence in the matter of promotion to the next higher post of Under Secretary.
-
This litigation has its roots in the Cabinet decision of October, 2003 vide which the approved permanent strength of the cadre of Section Officers was increased to 1400. For this increase in the strength necessary notification was to be issued separately to become effective, as per the decision of the Cabinet itself. The notification manifesting increase in the cadre strength came about on 27.2.2009. The official respondents would take the increased strength of the cadre from 2003 and make promotions for the vacancy year 2003 onwards. The applicant, by the time the increase in cadre strength aforesaid came about, was marginally short of the eligibility criteria, which, as per statutory rules, is eight years of service as Section Officer. The applicant being a 1996 batch officer would have the eligibility criteria in the year 2004 or 2005. Before we may make an elaborate mention of the pleadings, we may shortly cull out the basic contention raised in support of the plea that the applicant being senior despite not having the requisite qualifying service of eight years on the post of Section Officer, has to be considered along with her juniors. It is urged, in the first instance, that the Government through the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP & T), which is the nodal Ministry in all service matters as pertaining to Central Government employees, has issued memorandums from time to time, catering for the situation as the one in hand. It is spoken through the memorandums to be referred hereinafter, that where a senior may not have the eligibility criteria, but his or her juniors are being promoted, the eligibility criteria shall have to be relaxed. It is urged that these memos have to be read as part of the rules. Another contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that when the notification increasing the strength in the cadre came about in 2009, she was having far more number of years of service put on the post of Section Officer, and was admittedly answering the eligibility criteria. It is the case of the applicant that the Cabinet decision even though, might have been taken in October, 2003, it would be effective only from 2009 when the notification in that regard came to be issued, and that being so, the applicant would be eligible. To the contention, as mentioned above, the other limb is that if the respondents have to make promotions for the vacancy year 2003, the same cannot include promotions from the increased strength of the cadre. The third contention is that the memorandums, if may not be read as part of the rules or with the rules, would, in any case, be general directions across the board for relaxation in eligibility criteria of service. The fourth, but equally significant contention raised is that when there were sufficient and adequate grounds in existence for exempting the eligibility criteria for which ample powers exist in the statutory rules, in consideration of the entire material, the respondents proceeded in a right direction to give relaxation in rules to the applicant and other equally situate employees, and all notings and the orders made in that regard on official files were reversed by simply observing that relaxation in rules would lead to unnecessary litigation. It is urged that once, grounds justifying relaxation were in existence, it could not be overturned on the ground of anticipated litigation.
-
The respondents would join issues with the applicant on all the contentions as noted above.
-
The questions debated before us are of some significance. The Tribunal, being the court of original or primary jurisdiction, it would be appropriate to refer to the pleadings in sufficient details. Before we may, however, do that, we may mention that this Original Application came to be filed before the Tribunal in its Calcutta Bench on 19.12.2009. While making mention of the main contentions raised in the Application, the Hon'ble Members then seized of the matter, vide order dated 23.12.2009, restrained the respondents from giving any consequential order in respect of the select list of Grade-I for the year 2003. During pendency of the OA, some impleadment applications were allowed and number of promotee Section Officers were arrayed as party respondents. The interim directions, as mentioned above were modified to the effect that the official respondents were set at liberty to promote those officers whose names figured in the select list of 2003 and who were senior to the applicants as per seniority. The order passed by the Tribunal was, however, to abide by the final order to be passed in the OA. For non-obedience of the orders dated 23.12.2009, a contempt petition also came to be filed, in which notices were issued. Reply on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 also came to be filed when the matter was before the Bench at Calcutta. When proceedings stood so, an application came to be filed by the respondents seeking transfer of the OA to the Principal Bench at Delhi on variety of grounds. The said application, after notice, was allowed by one of us (V. K. Bali, Chairman) vide orders dated 10th September, 2010. Against the order aforesaid, the applicant Garima Singh filed WP(C) No.8267/2010 before the High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed vide orders dated 10.12.2010. The matter was being heard by a Division Bench and arguments in the matter were heard from time to time. However, vide order dated 7.3.2011, the matter was referred to a larger Bench for the reasons recorded in the said order. While, however, referring the matter to the larger Bench, the interim directions given by the Calcutta Bench were further modified to say that the respondents would be at liberty to promote persons to the post of Under Secretary, but the same would be subject to decision of the OA. Applicant and the last six persons in the select list in tune with seniority were, however, not to be promoted. The respondents, it was further ordered, would in all promotion orders specifically mention that their promotion would be subject to final outcome of the present OA, so that the applicant need not implead every promoted person as party respondent. It was, however, left open to the persons so promoted to address their arguments, impleaded or not. During pendency of the present OA before this Tribunal, five other OAs bearing Nos.4284/2010, 4285/2010, 382/2011, 384/2011 and 403/2011 also came to be filed, which have been ordered to be listed for hearing along with the present OA. Three more OAs bearing Nos.4282/2010, 4283/2010 and 4286/2010 also came to be filed during pendency of the OA filed by Garima Singh, wherein short replies have been filed by the respondents. These matters were being adjourned from time to time. However, when the same came up for hearing on 22.3.2011 before the Division Bench, by which time the judgment in Garima Singh's case had already been reserved, the same were reserved for judgment, and it was directed that the judgment in the same would be pronounced with Garima Singh's case. It is for that reason that we were informed by the counsel representing the applicant in Garima Singh's case that six direct recruits have filed OAs, we have granted a limited stay of non-promotion of six junior most promotee Section Officers. The pleadings in the main OA filed by Garima Singh are complete. The Tribunal thought that there would be no necessity to complete pleadings in other cases, as the learned counsel representing the parties were ad idem that the issue involved in all the matters is exactly the same and there would be no need to have response of the respondents in all the cases. That being so, while permitting, however, every counsel representing the parties in all the cases to address arguments, in order to save on time, no response of the respondents was sought in other OAs. By this common order, we propose to dispose of all the nine Original Applications, as has also been suggested by the learned counsel representing the parties.
-
Challenge in the OA filed by Garima Singh under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to the decision of Department of Personnel & Training, the 1st respondent herein, communicated vide office memorandum dated 25.8.2009 relating to the Select List for the year 2003 of the officers of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) for appointment to Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Service by incorporating the newly created posts in the panel of Under Secretaries of 2003, which had not come into existence on...
To continue reading
Request your trial