S.P. SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is arising out of order dtd. 7/7/2008 passed in O.A. No. 1063/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Petitioners have prayed for quashment of seniority list dtd. 18/9/2006/ 23/11/2006 of the Assistants. The facts of the case reveal that the substantive vacancies for the post of Assistant in the Armed Forces Headquarters (hereinafter referred as "the Department") were meant to be filled by two categories of appointees namely - direct recruits (Also referred as "DRs") and departmental promotees (Also referred as "DPs"). While preparing the seniority list of assistants in the department, the direct recruits were considered to be substantively appointed from the date of their initial appointment, whereas the departmental promotees were deemed to be substantively appointed only from the date of their confirmation after clearing the probation period, and not from the date of their initial appointment/promotion. Thus, for the purpose of calculating their relative seniority, the departmental promotees were denied the benefit of serving the probation period. The lis before us has been brought by the aggrieved departmental promotees alleging discrimination and denial of parity, owing to non-consideration of their service during the probation period, while fixing inter-se seniority of assistants.

(2.) Let us briefly traverse through the facts of the case. The Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968 (Hereinafter referred to as "the recruitment rules") provide for 50% of the substantive posts of Assistant to be filled by direct recruits through a competitive examination and the remaining 50% by departmental promotees. The inter-se or relative seniority of the assistants appointed as above is fixed on rotational basis between the direct recruits and departmental promotees, keeping in view the respective quota of vacancies reserved for them. In light of the erstwhile recruitment rules, the department published a seniority list of assistants on 9/12/2002. This list treated the date of confirmation, after the completion of probation period, as the date of appointment for both the categories of assistants. Aggrieved thereby, the direct recruits challenged the list in O.A. 347/2003. Before the Tribunal, the direct recruits sought the fixation of seniority in accordance with the amended rules to the effect that the directly recruited assistants in an year must be placed above the departmental promotees, promoted as temporary assistants in that year. Notably, the petitioners in this case were appointed against the substantive vacancies reserved for the direct recruits, as permissible under the rules. The Tribunal vide order dtd. 20/3/2006 ruled in favour of the applicants/direct recruits and directed the department to publish a fresh seniority list.

(3.) In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 347/2003, the respondents published a fresh seniority list on 18/9/2006, wherein the seniority of the direct recruits was fixed from the date of initial appointment, whereas the seniority of the departmental promotees was fixed from the date of confirmation. The respondents invited representations, if any, against the above seniority list. The petitioners herein submitted their representations, however, the same were rejected and the seniority list dtd. 18/9/2006 stood confirmed on 23/11/2006. The petitioners challenged the above seniority list before the Tribunal in O.A. 1063/2007. Noting that the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the rules and in compliance of the Tribunal's order in O.A. 347/2003, the Tribunal dismissed the application vide order dtd. 7/7/2008 (the impugned order).