TAPAN KUMAR DUTTA Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE perennial problem of seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees is the issue which has arisen in this petition as well. The genesis of this dispute is, in somewhat, peculiar circumstances. All the employees were at the relevant time holding the posts of Assistants. The petitioners belong to the category of promotees who got promotion from the rank of UDC to that of Assistant. Respondents No. 7 to 27 are appointed to the said posts as direct recruits. Recruitments/promotions for such post in Government of India including Election Commission of India is normally done by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) or Staff Selection Commission (SSC). However, for some reasons, as would be noted hereafter at relevant stage, the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Commission') decided to make appointment to various posts without referring the matter to the SSC. The petitioners are those persons who are promoted as Assistants by the Commission on ad -hoc basis. While making these promotions the requirement of Rules were also relaxed. Thereafter decision was also taken on 20.1.1996 to regularize their services w.e.f. dates of initial promotions. The dispute now revolves around the seniority which is to be given to them.

(2.) ON 10.12.2001, a draft seniority list was circulated by the Commission applying quota rota system. With this methodology the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the promotees) were placed senior to the respondents No. 7 to 27 (hereinafter referred to as the Direct Recruits). The Direct Recruits filed objections to the said draft seniority list which were turned down and final seniority list was issued vide memorandum dated 1.5.2002.

(3.) THE promotees also filed two OAs i.e. OA No. 1507/2002 and OA No. 1259/2002. In these OAs even promotees had impugned Memo dated 10.12.2001 as well as orders dated 1.5.2002 and the seniority assigned to them. Their contention was that the impugned order relegating their seniority on regularisation which has vested them with a right is bad in law for want of an opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. They therefore wanted their seniority from date of initial appointment.