N D MITRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Geological Survey of India (GSI) as an All India Service consists of six independent disciplines (cadres) namely, Geology, Geophysics, Geophysics (instrumentation), Geochemistry, Drilling and Mechanical Engineering. Promotions up to the rank of Deputy Director General, are confined to the respective disciplines. Above the Deputy Director General are two other ranks, Senior Deputy Director General and the Director General. Entry into the service as Group-A officer is through one of the disciplines. The seniority of the officers is maintained within their respective disciplines The feeder post for the Deputy Director General, in each of the discipline, is that of Director. Since the upward journey within the discipline ends at the post of Deputy Director General, the post of Senior Deputy Director General is filled by considering the Deputy Director Generals from all the disciplines The Government of India maintains a seniority list of Deputy Director Generals based on continuous length of service in the said Post.

(2.) The question before the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) was whether the seniority in the cadre of Deputy Director Generals be determined on the basis of continuous length of service in the said post or on the basis of the length of service in the discipline. It was also urged before the Tribunal that the Departmental Promotion Committee (the DPC) should meet at one point of time in a year to fill all the vacancies of the Deputy Director Generals falling vacant in various disciplines. The argument was that due to red-tape or administrative delays in the constitution of the DPCs, a person selected by an earlier DPC is bound to get higher seniority due to the fortuitous circumstance of one DPC having met earlier than the other. The Tribunal held that the seniority was rightly being determined on the basis of continuous length of service in the post of Deputy Director General. The Tribunal also rejected the contention regarding the simultaneous holding of the DPCs. The appellants who were the applicants before the Tribunal have come up to this Court against the judgment of the Tribunal.

(3.) Dr. N.D. Mitra and Dr. S. K. Acharyya - the appellants, on being selected by the Union Public Service Commission, joined the GSI as Geologist (Junior) in 1962, promoted as Geologist (Senior) in 1966 and to the post of Director (Geologist) in 1979. Dr. N. R. Sengupta respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Chemist in 1960, promoted as Chemist (Junior) in 1961, Chemist (Senior) in 1970 and Director (Geochem) in 1982. Shri D. B. Dimri -respondent No. 5 was appointed as Geophysicist (Junior) in 1966, promoted as Geophysicist (Senior) in 1971 and Director (Geophysics Instrumentation) in 1981. Shri M . R . Nair - respondent No. 6 was promoted to the post of Geophysicist (Junior) In 1960, promoted as Geophysicist (Senior) in 1966 and Director (Geophysics) in the year 1980. The post of Geologist (Junior), Chemist (Junior) and Geophysicist (Junior) are of equal status though in different disciplines. The appellants contended before the Tribunal that they, having been promoted to the post of Director earlier than the respondents, should rank senior to them as Deputy Director Generals. It was further contended by the appellants that they were eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Director General in March, 1988 but their cases were considered by the DPC held in December, 1988 whereas the DPCs for other streams such as, Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geophysics (Instrumentation) were held in March and May, 1988. Further, in the case of the appellants, the recommendations of the DPC were given effect to in the year 1989 whereas the recommendations in respect of the respondents were accepted and appointments made in June, August and November, 1988. According to the appellants the delays in holding the meeting of the DPC and giving effect to its recommendations have resulted in depriving the appellants of their seniority above the respondents. As mentioned above, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the appellants and dismissed their applications.