V SIVA KUMAR Vs. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short the Tribunal). By its order dated 18.2.1999 the Tribunal had directed that seniority list of Store Keepers was to be prepared on the principle that ; (1) the OM dated 7.2.1986 is prospective in nature and not retrospective; (2) the employees recruited after 1.3.1986, even though they were not empanelled and selected earlier to 1.3.1986, their seniority will be in accordance with the aforesaid OM as they were appointed to the service after 1.3.1986 and the impugned seniority list was to be amended with consequential benefits in terms of these principles.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 8.7.1983 notice for recruitment was issued for Store keepers, Class-III in the materials organization of the Vishakhapatnam Dockyard in the Direct Recruitment Quota (in short the DR). In 1982-83, appellants, pro forma respondent Nos. 45 to 55 had applied in response to this notification. All of them were selected in the year 1984 according to the Navy Grade-C Non-Industrial Posts, Store House Staff, Recruitment Rules, 1984 (in short the Recruitment Rules, 87 1/2 % of the posts were to be filled up by promotion and 12 1/2 % by direct recruitment. Out of every eight vacancies, the first seven are given to promotees and the last one to DR by rotation. On 7.2.1986, new principle of seniority was fixed in supersession of OM dated 22.12.1959. As per para 7 thereof the old principles contained in the OM dated 22.12.1959 were held not applicable for any appointment made after 7.2.1986 for which recruitment process started before 7.2.1986. 99 candidates were selected for promotion in the promotional quota. Appellants who are direct recruits and respondent Nos. 45-55 who were also direct recruits were appointed as Store Keepers on 1.12.1986. On 4.12.1989 inter se seniority list was prepared in which the appellants were shown at serial 4 to 44. The list was sent to all naval establishments for circulation, verification and for pointing out any discrepancy and corrections, if any. On 21.10.1991 another seniority list was issued showing the appellant and pro forma respondent Nos. 45 to 55 below respondent Nos. 4-44 and they were pushed down by about 240 places. On 21.11.1991 objections were submitted by the appellants. On 12.3.1992 final seniority list was issued showing the appellants and respondents 45 to 55 lower down. O.A. No. 673 of 1992 was filed before the Tribunal by the appellants and respondents 45 to 55 challenging the seniority list on 25.4.1995. The same was allowed. But the judgment was not challenged by anybody and, therefore, it became final. On 21.11.1996, the Full Bench of Tribunal in other O.As. relating to Excise Departments decided certain issues. The stand of the appellants was that the parameters indicated in para 7 of the OM were not in issue before the Full Bench. On 27.12.1996 revised seniority list was issued purportedly in line with the judgment in OA No. 673 of 1992. On 12.3.1997 appellant Nos.1, 4 and 7 were appointed as Store Keeper on the basis of the revised seniority list. On 13.2.1997 Division Bench of the Tribunal allowed OA No.1323 of 1993 relating to the Central Excise Department. On 3.7.1997, OA No. 843 of 1997 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad challenging the revised seniority list dated 27.12.1996 and the promotion order dated 12.3.1997. In February, 1998 appellant Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 were promoted as store keepers on the basis of the revised seniority List dated 27.12.1996.

(3.) A Division Bench of a Tribunal held in O.A. No. 843 of 1997 by order dated 18.2.1999 that the Full Bench while hearing the R.A. No. 103 of 1993 in OA No.1019 of 1992 did not address itself to the question of persons selected prior to 7.2.1986 and appointed subsequent to 7.2.1986. However, relying on the judgment of another Division Bench in OA No.673 of 1992 it was held that OM dated 7.2.1986 is prospective which upset the seniority of the appellants. On 17.3.1999 appellants filed Writ Petition No. 5540 of 1999 challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal in OA No. 843 of 1997. By order dated 3.3.2000 writ petition was dismissed holding that the Full Benchs decision of the Tribunal applied to the facts of the case.