DR. (MRS.) VASUDHA GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, SHRI E. MARRIAPAN AND SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 assailing the draft Civil/Seniority list of officers in Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of IIS Group A issued on the basis of review DPC held on 16.05.2012 wherein respondent No. 2 belonging to 1990 Batch of IIS Group A has been declared senior to the applicant, who belongs to 1989 Batch of the same Service. The applicant apprehends that the DPC proceedings under active consideration of respondent No. 1 based on the said seniority list in so far as the applicant qua the respondent No. 2 is concerned is likely to result in commission of grave injustice to her. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): -

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly put, are that the applicant is a directly recruited in the Indian Information Service (hereinafter referred to as IIS) and allocated to 1989 batch. She was placed at Sl. No. 6 below one Bhupinder S. Kainthola and above one K.P. Jayakar vide order dated 21.09.1993. Likewise, admittedly, the respondent No. 2 is also a directly recruited member of the same Service allotted to 1990 batch, a batch junior to the applicant. Further, admittedly, the respondent No. 1 is the Cadre Controlling Authority of the IIS Group A. It is the case of the applicant that the seniority in respect of direct recruits is based on the relative merit position in the competitive examination conducted by the UPSC and the Presidential Notification dated 21.09.1993 issued by the respondent No. 1 appointing the applicant (1989 batch) in a substantive capacity in Junior Grade of Service. Subsequently, the applicant was deputed to the Ministry of Earth Sciences on central Deputation as Director for a period of 5 years from 26.02.2008 and rejoined the respondent No. 1 on 26.07.2013 after having availed a period of two months following the central deputation. During this interregnum, while the applicant was on deputation, the respondent No. 1 published a seniority list in respect of JAG Grade Officers of IIS Group A as on 01.04.2009 wherein the applicant was shown at Sl. No. 28 i.e. below one E. Marriappan, the respondent No. 2 herein. Again the respondent No. 1 had published a seniority list on 09.05.2011 as per the extant IIS (Group A) Rules wherein the applicant was shown at serial No. 31, below the respondent No. 2, who was shown at serial No. 27 and one Bhupinder S. Kainthola at Sl. No. 29. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a representation on 14.07.2010 to the respondent No. 1 as also to respondent No. 3 requesting them for correction of her seniority before holding DPC for JAG officers of IIS Group A to SAG. The applicant further sent her objections on 31.01.2008 to this very effect. She subsequently filed an RTI application regarding placement of the respondent No. 2 in the list of directly recruited persons of 1989 batch above her. The applicant further alleges that the RTI Authorities circumventing the issue provided their internal notes dated 13.05.2011 to 16.05.2011 and a copy of the notification dated 31.01.2008, which, in fact, do not provide for any reservation after entry in Group A Service whether as a direct recruit or on promotion. Subsequently, the applicant came to learn that the respondent No. 1 had initiated the process of conducting DPC/review DPC from JAG/NSFS level to SAG level on the basis of the invalid and non est seniority lists dated 09.11.2009 and 09.05.2011, which affect the seniority of the applicant vis -a -vis respondent No. 2 and is likely to affect her legal rights as well on being considered and appointed before the respondent No. 2. The applicant, in support of her claim, has adopted the following grounds: -The respondents have committed a grave error in placing the respondent No. 2 above the applicant despite the fact that there is no reservation on any of the categories after a civil servant had been inducted into Group A Service of the Union.

(3.) THE applicant has filed a rejoinder application rebutting the facts and arguments raised in the counter reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 3. It is submitted that the IIS (Group A) Rules 1987 provided Note -III below Schedule IV, which reads as under: -