SANT LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition which can be culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that the process for filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors by way of direct recruitment was initiated in the year 1977. The petitioner was selected for the post of Sub Inspector and was placed at Sr. No.12 of the merit list drawn at the time of selection. He joined his duties on 20.3.1978. The respondents No.5 to 9 were over age at the time of selection though their names found mention in the merit list drawn at the time of filling up the posts of Sub Inspectors by way of direct recruitment. Their case was taken with the competent authority by the Head of the Department for relaxation in age. The respondents No.5 to 9 were appointed by relaxation in age criteria and they joined in the month of July, 1980 as Sub Inspectors. The petitioner was ranking senior to the respondents No.5 to 9 since he had joined his duties on 20.3.1978 and the respondents No.5 to 9 had joined their duties in the month of July, 1980. He was promoted to the post of Inspector on the basis of seniority determined as per date of appointment after qualifying the "E' test in the year 1984 on 15th August, 1986. The respondents No.5 to 9 were promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1988.

(2.) IT appears that a representation was made by the candidates who were over age at the time of selection and were appointed by relaxation in the Rules in the year 1980 to count their seniority as per the merit list drawn in the year 1977. The matter was taken up by the authorities with the Cabinet Secretary vide SSB letter dated 17.10.1995. The Cabinet Secretary referred the matter further to the Department of Personnel and Training and on the basis of the observations made by the Department of Personnel and Training on 29.11.1995, the seniority of the directly recruited Sub Inspectors was revised and re-fixed in the order of merit drawn at the time of recruitment vide letter dated 20.2.1997. Consequently the petitioner ranked junior to the respondents No.5 to 9 as per the seniority issued in the year 1997.

(3.) MS . Ranjana Parmar, Advocate had strenuously argued that her client was appointed as Sub Inspector on 20th March, 1978 and the respondents No.5 to 9 were appointed in the month of July, 1980 and could not rank senior to her client on the basis of decision taken on 17.10.1995, 22.11.1995, 29.11.1995, 20.2.1997 and 16.3.1998. Her further contention is that on the basis of date of joining as Sub Inspector, her client had qualified 'E' test in the year 1984 and was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1986 and the respondents No.5 to 9 were promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1988 but by issuing corrigendum the seniority of respondents No.5 to 9 has been shown with effect from 1986.