UOI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Central Government (hereafter referred to as UOI) has preferred this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming to be aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as CAT) of 12.05.2005. By that order, the CAT directed the UOI to prepare a revised selection list in accordance with Rule 12(2) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Rules (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') enforceable at the relevant time and consider the claims of the respondents -hereafter referred to as the applicants -in accordance with law. The applicants are members of the CSS, a group 'B' service. All of them were recruited directly to the post of Section Officers (hereafter referred to as SOs) which has two sources of recruitment. The first 20% through the quota earmarked for direct recruitment and the balance 80% through promotion. Of the promotion quota, half (i.e. 40% of the entire cadre) is earmarked to be filled on the basis of seniority -cum -fitness and the other half, i.e., 40% is to be filled on the basis of the recruitment through limited departmental tests. The feeder grade for SOs -in the promotion channel -is from Assistants. In the limited departmental test, the promotion quota has been expanded to include the Assistants and Stenographers Grade 'C' of Central Secretariat Stenographer Services (hereafter referred to CSSS) with eight years of service. The further promotion -from amongst the cadre of SOs -is to that of Under Secretary. At the relevant time, i.e., between 1978 and 1984, the concerned Rule, i.e., Rule 12(2) provided as follows: -

(2.) ON 8.3.1999, the Rules were amended. By the CSS (2nd Amendment) Rules, the 3rd Proviso was omitted. The record bears testimony to the fact that considerable litigation as to the correct seniority position of various holders of posts had preceded the present litigation. As a consequence, the seniority lists and eligibility lists -on the basis of which promotions were to be made was given effect to under Rule 12 -were repeatedly unsettled. These seniority lists were issued on various dates, i.e., those pertaining to the periods 1.7.1989 to 30.6.1990 (in the select list of the year 1989); for the period 1.7.1990 to 30.6.1991 (in the select list of the year 1990) and 1.7.1993 to 30.6.1994 and 1.7.1994 to 30.6.1995. In between the validity of the 1978 Rules was also called into question, culminating in the decision of the Supreme Court which upheld the amendment to the extent that it means the minimum eligibility criteria in respect of direct recruitment candidates for promotion to the post of Under Secretary (Refer R. Prabha Devi and Others v. Government of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and Others, : AIR 1988 SC 902.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents/applicants urged, on the other hand, that the impugned order is well reasoned and does not call for interference. She submitted that none of the lists prepared by the UOI and impugned before the Tribunal had in fact disclosed how the Proviso to Rule 12(2) which was applicable at the relevant time when the vacancies occurred was given effect to. It was submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the vacancies that were filled by the juniors of the applicants -in terms of 3rd Proviso to Rule 12(2) had to be filled in accordance with the Rules as existing then. That such lists had been prepared but called into question and consequently get embroiled into litigation was a fortuitous circumstance which ought not to have weighted by the Central Government by finalising the list even after 1999. The UOI was bound to give effect to the rules as they existed up to 1999 in respect of vacancies that occurred prior to that period. She submitted that not only Y.V. Rangaiah (supra) but the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal, : 1997 (10) SCC 419 also supported this case. She also submitted that what the UOI is in effect doing is giving retrospective effect to the 1999 amendment when the plain intendment was finalised. She relied upon Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji v. State of GNCT of Delhi, : 2009 (6) SCC 490 to say that unless an amendment specifically provides that it would apply from the prior date, there is a presumption that the same would apply from the date of enactment or the date on which it is brought into force after its enactment. Likewise, learned counsel relied upon The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Ch. Gandhi, : (2013) 5 SCC 111 to say that there is a presumption against retrospective operation of the statute.