B N BAJPAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 21.5.1998 passed in OA No. 1882/97 wherein the Tribunal has issued the following direction :

(2.) The applicants, non-official respondents had been working as principals in schools. They filed the said application in regard to the alleged inaction of the official respondents in not convening regular DPCs for promotion to the post of Education Officer or Assistant Education Officer. 50% of the said posts are filled up by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. DPC held its meeting in August, 1983 and pursuant to its recommendation promotion to the eligible candidates had' been granted. Direct recruitment was made in November, 1984 and again in May, 1996. In the year 1986, some principals, who were promoted as Assistant Directors through DPC on ad-hoc basis had, inter alia, contended that the direct recruits who were also principals should be held to be junior to them, inter alia, on the ground that they had been working on those posts on ad hoc basis and rota quota system had failed in the education department. On 29.1.1987, the Tribunal disposed of the matter holding that rota quota had failed and thus directed the seniority list to be prepared on the basis of length of service. A final seniority list of Assistant Directors/ Education Officers was drawn up after calling for objections therefor in October, 1987 from both the categories of direct recruits and promotees whereafter the promotees were placed above the direct recruits. Curiously enough, after 1986 no direct recruitment was made and principals were being promoted on ad hoc basis. However, the age of retirement of Assistant Director Education/Education Officer was 58 years while those of principal was 60 years. It is accepted that a practice came to be developed to the effect that as soon as the concerned candidate would reach the age of 58 they would seek reversion to the post of principal. However, on 25.3.1994, 20 posts of ADE/EO in the direct recruit quota were filled up through UPSC. Out of the eligible candidates, 21 principals were promoted to the post of ADE/EO on adhoc and emergent basis till regular appointments were made through UPSC. In the meanwhile, directly recruited officers of 1984 batch who had completed three years of service had also been given work- charge of Deputy Director Education.

(3.) Respondents No. 5 to 9 filed an original application praying therein that respondents 1 to 4 be directed to issue a final seniority/ list of principals, convene a DPC with reference to year-wise vacancies of Assistant Director of Education /Education Officer from 1984 onwards and grant them seniority with effect from the same dates when the vacancies arose in the ratio of 1:1. A preliminary objection, as regards the said original application being barred by limitation, had been raised by the petitioners herein, but the same was rejected by the Tribunal stating :