AJIT SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Die appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the seniority list dated 8-5-1978 issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and also the promotion orders dated 20th April, 1978 and 20th January, 1979 promoting some of the respondents from Grade-111 to Giade-ll of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Executive) Service. The appellants contended before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that holding of the examinations for the first time in 1973-74 after the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/ Executive) Seivice Rules, 1967 had come into force, and allowing all persons to become eligible between the years 1967 to 1974 to appear for filling the posts which arose as far back as 1967-68 was illegal and contrary to Rule 6(3) read with Rule 12 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/Executive) Service Rules, 1967. It was contended that the carrying forward of all the vacancies since 1967 and holding an examination in 1974 for all the vacancies and allowing all the persons with three years service by 1974 to compete for those vacancies vitiated the right to equality as it suffers for want of rational classification. The petitioners further contended that since the letter inviting applications for the competitive examinations were not circulated to the petitioners, although it was individually circulated to 838 Grade-IV (Executive Officials), the petitioneres were denied equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to Grade-III in the competitive examination. It was urged that the names of some of the petitioners had not been included in the seniority list of Grade-III officers even though the petitioners were approved tor promotion to Grade-III of the service by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Commitee and were appointed against regular posts. It was contended that the petitioners promotion to Grade-III (Executive) was regular after selection by Departmental Promotion Committee and not fortuitous emergent appointment or a stop gap arrangement and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to get their seniority from the date of their initial appointment.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellants were appointed to posts included in Grade-IV (Executive) of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service between the period 1958 to 1960. Respondents No. 3 to 45 were appointed to the posts included in Grade-IV from 25th August. 1962 onwards till 30th October, 1970. The. Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/Executive) Service Rules, 1967 came into force on 10th February,1967. According to Rule 6 (III) recruitment to Grade-II is to be made by promotion from Grade-IV by two methods; (a) 50 per cent on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit; and (b) 50 per cent by promotion of officers of Grade-IV on the basis of merit determined through a competitive examination, Rule 6(III) (c) determined the method of promotion by way of rotation if the quota was to be operated, It provided that the first vacancy would be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the second vacancy by promotion on the basis of merit determined as a result of examination As it happened no examinations were held till the year 1973. The petitioners were promoted to Grade-III on ad hoc basis. The appointment of the petitioners were made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Delhi Administration decided to hold the first examination in the 839 A year 1973 and invited particuiars from Heads of Department of the Grade-IV officials desirous of sitting for the test on 16th July, 1973. Whoever had completed three years of service as on 1st August, 1973 in Grade-IV was made eligible to appear for the competitive examination. Though there is some dispute regarding circulation of the said letter to employees in Grade-IV, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners who were already officiating or working on ad hoc basis in Grade-111 did not appear at the competitive examination. In 1974 first competitive examination was held. Respondents No. 3 to 45 who appeared for the examination were promoted to Grade-111 on ad hoc basis between the period 31st July, 1974 and 29th January, 1976. On 14th October, 1976 the promotions of some of the petitioners were regularised in Grade-111 with effect from that date. As regards a few others the promotion was regularised in Grade-III on 4-11-1981 with effect from that date. On 14th October, 1976 the promotions of respondents No. 3 to 45 which was also ad hoc were also regularised from the same date. A tentative seniority list was circulated on January 21, 1977 which showed higher positions to respondents No. 3 to 45. Though the final seniority list was issued on 8th May, 1978 the respondents No. 3 to II were further promoted from Grade-111 to Grade-II on purely emergent and ad hoc basis even before the seniority list of Grade-111 was issued. It is this final seniority list of 8th May. 1978 which was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge over-ruled the contentions of the petitioners and dismissed the petition. This Letters Patent Appeal is against that order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The main contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge as before us was that the promotions made from 1967 to 1973 to fill up clear vacancies in Grade-111 on the basis of list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee under Rule 12 are regular promotions falling under sub-rule (i) of Rule 6(111). The appointments of the appellants to Grade-111 were made after selection by the Departmental 840 Promotion Committee under rule 12. The appellants became temporary cadre officers on their promotion to Grade-III during the year 1967 to 1973. Consequently, they were entitled to substantive appointments to the grade under sub-rule (2) of rule 6(111) in the order of their seniority as temporary cadre officers in the grade. It was contended that the quota rule mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6(III) has to be applied at the stage of initial recruitment as temporary cadre officers i.e. when clear vacancies in Grade-III are filled by promotion of officers from Grade-IV by the two methods specified therein.