UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASST DIRECTOR GENERAL SGT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Numerous proceedings in relation to the determination of the seniority of Junior Engineers, before different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunals, various High Courts and, on several occasions, before the Supreme Court during a period of over 10 to 15 years, with regard to the interpretation and application of the instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Communications, on 28.6.1966, in Appendix I, Para (v), which paragraph is extracted below, culminated in the decision rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association (2000) 9 SCC 71, wherein the Court declared that "the question of seniority in the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, when persons belonging to the same recruitment year are recommended, has to be decided in accordance with paragraph (iii) of the memorandum dated 28.6.1966 and in accordance with the statutory Recruitment Rules read with the appendix attached thereto for promotion to the posts in Group 'B' service. A separate list has to be made in respect of each recruitment year".

(2.) Para (v) referred to in the previous paragraph reads as under:-

(3.) A bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad had, on an application filed by two Junior Engineers, Paramanand Lal and Brij Mohan, interpreted this paragraph as requiring the Department to rank all those who passed the qualifying examination above those who passed the same examination at a later point of time, without reference to the year in which they had been recruited. That decision was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court and a Special Leave Petition against that Judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, there were numerous proceedings before various Benches of the Tribunal, claiming relief similar to the one that had been granted to Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan. One such proceeding went up to the Supreme Court which, in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephones Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Social Welfare Association (1997) 10 SCC 226, in which it was held that "the eligibility list has to be prepared according to the year of recruitment/appointment and neither according to the year of passing of the examination nor with reference to the year of confirmation."