UNION OF INDIA Vs. A K SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Power and the Central Electricity Authority, the petitioners, seek setting aside of the order dated 24.9.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). By the impugned order dated 24.9.1998, the Original Application (OA) filed by the private respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ,,successful private respondents) before CAT was allowed whereby they were given seniority over the private respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in O.A. No.266/94 and the private respondents Nos.3 to 14 in O.A. No.267/94. These latter private respondents are hereinafter referred to as the ,,unsuccessful private respondents.

(2.) Two points arise for determination in the present case and were so canvassed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The first issue and the ground of challenge raised was that the OAs were either barred by the limitation or by the principle of delay and laches. The second argument and issue is that the grant of seniority to the successful private respondents herein (applicants in the OAs) was in violation of the Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22.12.1959, 20.4.1961 and 12.9.1968. It is argued that as per these office memorandums, the seniority of the unsuccessful private respondents ought to have been over the successful private respondents because the seniority is not on the basis of the seniority as per the select list prepared as per the original appointments but on the basis of differing dates of confirmations of the private respondents.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the private respondents belong to the Central Power Engineering Services Group-A. These private respondents, i.e. both these successful and unsuccessful private respondents belong to the 1979 and 1980 batch. The recruitment of these private respondents was through regular channel through examination and selection as per the merit list prepared and approved by the UPSC. In this select list, as prepared by the UPSC, the successful private respondents were placed higher than the unsuccessful private respondents. Subsequently, on 25.8.1986 a provisional seniority list was issued wherein the unsuccessful private respondents were shown higher in the seniority list than the successful private respondents. Other seniority lists followed thereafter between 1986 to 1991, though no promotions were made pursuant to these subsequent lists. A representation was given by one of the successful private respondents to the seniority list of 1986, however, this representation was not decided. Thereafter, the seniority list was issued on 26.9.1991 which again showed the successful private respondents below the unsuccessful private respondents and again a representation dated 25.6.1992 was made to the petitioners which failed to elicit any response. The petitioners, thereafter, published the impugned seniority list dated 24.2.1993 which reflected materially the same position as in the seniority lists of 1986 and 1991. Since promotions were sought to be effected on the basis of this seniority list of the year 1993, the successful private respondents approached CAT and have succeeded in their OAs thereby granting them seniority over the unsuccessful private respondents.