B.S. MURTHY Vs. A. RAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by a common judgment and order of the erstwhile unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh in several writ petitions (W.P.Nos.11620/2004, 10601/2004; 13525/ 2004, 12970/ 2004, 21863/2004, 1834/ 2005, 1836/2005, 1838 of 2005, 1858/ 2005, 1861/ 2005, 2011/2005, 1348/ 2005, 18149/ 2004, W.P. No.6098/2005, 6099/2005; 6100/ 2005, and 6097/ 2005; all were decided on 16/3/2005). The High Court allowed those writ petitions and set aside the order (dtd. 29/12/2003) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a batch of ten original applications. The CAT 's order had allowed those applications and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and promotees. The promotee inspectors are aggrieved, and are appellants before this court.

(2.) Recruitment to the posts of Inspectors of Central Excise is from amongst two channels- one, direct recruitment and the other, by promotion from in-service candidates: in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise and Land Customs Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereafter the "1979 Rules" or "the Rules ") framed by the President of India under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. The ratio between the direct recruits and the promotions - from amongst various in-service cadres on the ministerial line- was fixed under the Rules at 75%:25% (or 3:1). The Rules however, did not provide guidance for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruit inspectors (DRIs) and promotee inspectors (PRIs). Seniority lists were prepared on the basis of executive instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. It is an undisputed fact that inter se seniority was governed by an office memo (Office Memo No. 9/11/55 RSP dtd.: 22/12/1959) dtd. 22/12/1959 (hereafter "1959 OM ") stipulating general guidelines to determine the seniority of various category of employees in the Central Secretariat. The Central Excise Department too followed it. The 1959 OM stipulated that seniority was determinable by the order indicated at the time of initial appointment (and not date of confirmation). Permanent Officers of each grade were to be ranked seniors to those officiating to that grade. The inter se seniority of the direct recruits was to be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. or such selecting authority. Paras 2-5 of the 1959 OM provided the principles for determining inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees. In the light of experience, the 1959 OM was changed, and another OM was issued, on 7/2/1986 (OM No. 35014/2/80- Estt. (D), dtd.: 7/2/1986) (hereafter "1986 OM ").

(3.) Five Revenue Inspectors, from the promotion cadre (hereafter called generically also- apart from PRIs as "promotees "), promoted in 1983-1984 filed an application (O.A.NO. 156/1986), challenging the inter se seniority list dtd. 8/7/1985 (hereafter "the 1985 list ") issued by the department on the ground that the length of their continuous service was not taken into consideration while fixing seniority. This application however did not implead the direct recruit employees; it was allowed on 5/7/1988 (hereafter "CAT 1988 order "). CAT directed the department to recast seniority in accordance with the 1986 OM after giving notice to the affected parties. A revised list was thereafter issued. DRIs, whose seniority was affected by the revised seniority list filed review applications (R.A. No. 29/1994 etc) in the disposed of applications. The CAT reiterated its main order, dtd. 5/7/1998 (hereafter "CAT review order "). The department then issued a final seniority list (as on 1/1/1992) on 30/4/1993 (hereafter "1993 final list "). Those promoted before 1986 also requested the department to fix their seniority in terms of the CAT 's 1998 order.