LAXMAN MISHRA Vs. SECRETARY TECHNICAL DIVISION AND DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the pleadings before the Administrative Tribunal as well as before this Court. It is expressly made clear that the dispute in this appeal is restricted to the cadre of Development Officer (DO).

(2.) It is not disputed that there were three sources of recruitment to the cadre: (7) promotion, (2) direct, and (3) transfer. Under the rules quota is prescribed in this behalf. The appellants before us are the direct recruits. Respondents 3 to 50 herein are the departmental promotees. These departmental promotees, it appears, have filed OA before the Administrative tribunal complaining that although they were senior to the direct recruits by virtue of their appointments in this cadre on officiation, they were pushed down against the direct recruits who are junior to them vis-a-vis the date of officiation. It is therefore prayed that seniority be granted to them on the basis of length of service inclusive of the period of officiation that they have put in the said cadre.

(3.) As against this the appellants before us have contended that some of the private respondents were appointed against the posts reserved for the direct quota. It was purely on officiating basis. When the candidates (appellants) were appointed against the direct quota, the promotees who were working on the posts reserved for the said quota would not be entitled to gain seniority over the direct recruits. They, therefore, prayed that the applicants before the Tribunal have no cause of action to quarrel with their seniority in the cadre.