Summary
Engineers who accepted permanent absorption expressly sacrificing past-service seniority could not later obtain that seniority merely by challenging the resulting seniority list. General deputation-seniority memoranda did not override their accepted, unchallenged absorption terms. The High Court’s decision against them was upheld.
Issues
- Whether general seniority instructions displaced express absorption terms accepted without timely challenge.
- Whether the recruitment schedule independently authorized deputation-based seniority.
Provisions considered
- Section 21, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985A belated challenge to the absorption conditions themselves would have been time-barred; challenging their consequential seniority list did not avoid that obstacle. (¶¶ 5, 31–32)
- Rules 3 and 5; Schedule columns 11 and 12, Department of Post Junior Engineer recruitment rules, 1995Column 12 operated only where the mode was prescribed in column 11; it did not independently introduce deputation for these posts. (¶¶ 13, 35–36)
Held
- The general rule protecting equivalent prior service was distinguished because these employees knowingly elected absorption as new recruits with seniority counted from absorption, while retaining other service benefits and the option of repatriation. The conditions remained unchallenged and governed their list positions. (¶ 29–34)
- The prescribed recruitment methods for these posts did not include deputation. The residual-power absorption arrangement could carry the accepted conditions; implementation of another Tribunal order did not invalidate the High Court’s legal conclusion here. (¶ 34–37)
Result
Appeals dismissed; applications for directions and contempt petition closed.