M.J. JOSEPH Vs. UPSC & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred against orders dated 30.8.2001 whereby OA of the respondent had been allowed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner also impugns orders dated 23.11.2001 passed by the Tribunal whereby his review application was also dismissed. The issue involved is in a narrow compass. The dispute relates to the seniority of the respondent vis-'-vis the petitioner and respondents No.7 and 8. All of them are direct recruits of 1979 batch of the Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS). The respondent No.6 was above petitioner and respondents No.7 and 8 in the merit list of 1979 batch and, therefore, at the time of appointment, he was ranked senior to them. All of them joined in Junior Time Scale of ICAS. Thereafter, they were promoted to Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade and subsequently were given selection grade of Junior Administrative Grade.

(2.) Events took a turn when their cases were considered for next promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade. This promotional level is governed by Rule 20(1)(v) of ICAS Rules which prescribes that appointment to this grade is by selection on merit from amongst officers who have put in eight years regular service in JAG (including service, if any, in non-functional grade of JAG) or 17 years regular service in Group "A" post of which at least four years regular service shall be in JAG. Though during the year 1995-96, one vacancy in SAG arose with effect from 31.1.1996, however, as on that date, neither the petitioner nor respondents No.6 to 8 were eligible to be considered as they had not put requisite length of service prescribed in Rule 20(1)(v) of ICAS Rules. Accordingly, no promotion was made in that year. Thereafter, two vacancies arose in August-October, 1996-97 and one vacancy arose on 1.2.1997. Thus, total three vacancies arose in the year 1996-97. The respondent No.3 sent proposal to the UPSC vide letter dated 6.11.1996 for preparing a panel of suitable officers for filling up of these vacancies. DPC met for this purpose on 21.10.1997. CR dossiers, integrity certificates, inter se seniority of the candidates, etc. were placed before the DPC. DPC assessed the comparative merit of all these candidates, namely, petitioner as well as Respondents 6 to 8 and recommended the panel in the following order:

(3.) This panel was forwarded to Respondent No.3, i.e. the Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance. Approval of the Finance Minister was taken on 18.2.1997. Thereafter, approval of Appointment Committee of Cabinet was also obtained on 21.4.1997. After doing these requisites, promotion orders were issued. Since the name of the respondent No.8 was at the bottom, i.e. after the petitioner and respondents No.6 and 7 as Sr. SAG, the respondent No.8 became junior to the petitioner and respondents No. 6 and 7. It is under these circumstances that the Respondent No.8 approached the Tribunal by filing the OA submitting that he was senior to the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 herein and had equally good ACRs and, therefore, he could not be downgraded by the DPC. The Tribunal found that Respondent No.8, petitioner as well as respondents No.6 and 7 herein had the following ACRs: