L R GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, seven in number, are departmental promotecs who are/were working as Senior Tecnical Officera/Technical Officers with the National Airport Authority and originally belonged to Communication Directorate under Director General Civil Aviation. They have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 against Union of India, Director General. Civil Aviation (in short, D.G.C.A.). Chairman, National Airport Authority (in short, N.A A.) and. 30 pritvate respondents working as Senior Techtlical.Officers under National Airport Authority, New Delhi. The grievance of .the applicants is regarding fixation of their seniority vis-a-vis direcr recruit Technical Officers as shown in seniority lists issued by respondent No. 2 as on 1-10-83 (Annexure A-1),as on 1-12-1986 (Annexure (A-2) amd as on 1-7-1987 (AnnexureA-3). They have prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The brief facts are that the applicant who arc/were on deputation to N.N.A. .were originally employees of Communicatioin Dircctorate under D.G.C.A., Government of India. The applicants while serving in Civii Aviation as Assistant Technical officers (in short, A.T.O were promoted as Technical Officer on ad-hoc basis as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_131_DRJ20_1991Html1.htm</FRM> They were later regularised as Technical officer with effect from 5-5-1983 without any break in service. On the passing of the Act No. 6:4 of 1985 under Section 13(3), the applicacts were placed on deputation with N.A.A. and were to be governed by the same terms and conditions of service as in their earlier posting under D.G.C.A. Tins arrangement came into effect from 1-6-1986. The post of Technical Officer is a election post and as per the Recruitment Rules, 50 per cent of the vacancies are to be filled up by promotion from the departmental candidates failing which by direct recruitment and the remaining 50 per cent by direct recruitment The ratio waste beachieved by rotation one departmental promotee (in short D.P.) with one direct recruitment (in short, D.R ). The next promotion is to the post of Senior Technical Offecer (STO) and the mode of recruitment to this post is bypromotion Only. Since, there was a quota/rota system prevalent. in the selection of T.O., the D.G.C.A, while fiXing the seniority had been, keeping vacant slots for the direct recruits who came subsequently but were selecteed against the Vacancies carried forward from previous years. Such slots have been shown in the seniority lats of 1983,1986 and 1987 (Annexure A-1 to A-3). Before the staff of the communication Directorate was transfereed t N.A.A. on 1-6-1989, the only prevailing list was of 1983 which formed the basis of subsequent lists 1986 and 1987 (Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3).

(3.) The contention of the applicans that the seniority lists have not been prepared correctly on the basis of continuous length of service in the grade which is contrary to the various judgments given by the Hon`ble Supreme Court and high Courts It is contended that respendent No. 2 bad no justificationb for carryjng forward the vacncies of direct recruits from year to year, despite the fact. that no such provision existed in the rules. The slots were kept vacant for later direct recruits, who were given the benefit of seniority from back date although they have not actually served in that period. That subsequently, the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training issued order dated 7-2-1986 (Annexure A-5) in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled by Direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unitended seniority over D.P., who-Were already in position would bedispensed with These order? were effective from 1-3-1986. The- respondents in utter disregard of these orders have been keeping vacant slots, even thereafter, as will be seen from seniority lists of 1986and 1987 (Annexurcv A-2 and A-3). That respondents 4 to 33 who joined much later -than the applicants have all been shown senior to them in the seniority lists and thus jeopardising their chances of promotion. A perusal of the seniority lists would show that even direct recruits of later years i.e, of 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 have been accorded seniority with the DP of 1981 and, the extent of advantage thus conferred, on the D.R. has increased considerably and the gap between the two categories ranges from seven to eight years. ' The applicants havfc been pushed down in the matter of seniority from year to year because of the carry forward system of vacancies earmarked for D.R. adopted by respondent No.2 Yearwise recruitment through U.P.S.C was not done for many years. The applicants have quoted some instances and referred to. the position of resppondemt No.33, S.K. Swamy, who was recruited on 14-4-1987 placed at SI. No. 81 in the 1987 list (Annexure A-3) while P.C. Jain. Applicant DP has been shown at SI No. 102, though he was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 30-11-1981 and later on regularised w.e.f., 5-5-1983. Similar position has been shown for Respondent No 27, Shri Y.K. Bhagat, who joined on 13-2-1287 and placed at Serial-No 69 and shown senior to Shri H.S.Grewal. DP at Serial. No. 70 in the list of 198.7; though Shri Grewal has been aT.O. since 2-8-1980 on ad-hoc basis and regularised on 5-5-1983.