Summary
The dispute concerned seniority between promoted and directly recruited Central Excise Inspectors. The Court held that the promotion quota depended on actual vacancies, not a fraction of the limited vacancies reported for direct recruitment during a recruitment ban. The anti-suppression clause in the 1986 seniority memorandum did not render these promotions ad hoc. Restoring the Tribunal’s decision, the Court directed preparation and publication of the final seniority list within three months, subject to its specified directions.
Issues
- Whether promotions exceeded the prescribed quota when measured against actual vacancies rather than direct-recruitment indents.
- Whether paragraph 5 of the 1986 memorandum applied during the direct-recruitment ban.
- How appointment dates, eligible continuous officiation and previously settled seniority affected the final list.
Provisions considered
- Paragraphs 3–5 and 7, Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 7 February 1986The rules governing rotation, available recruits and suppression of direct-recruitment vacancies did not justify treating promotions within the actual quota as excess or reopening seniority governed by the earlier instructions. (¶¶ 32, 41-48, 55-62)
Held
- The twenty-five-percent promotion quota was calculated from actual vacancies. Indents sent for direct recruitment represented only part of the vacancies and could not establish the promotion quota by taking one-third of their number. Promotions during 1983–1991 had not exceeded the actual quota. (¶¶ 41-48, 62(i)-(ii))
- Paragraph 5 addressed underreporting or suppression of vacancies to benefit promotees. The executive ban on direct recruitment and the circumstances established here did not attract that provision or make the promotions ad hoc on that ground. (¶¶ 32, 41-48, 62(iii))
- Direct recruits could claim seniority from actual appointment, rather than an earlier recommendation or receipt of dossiers. Those appointed in 1992 could not obtain seniority from 1991. Neither recruitment channel could ordinarily claim seniority before appointment. (¶¶ 55-56, 62(iv))
- Eligible promotees appointed within their quota and subsequently regularised were entitled to count continuous officiation in the circumstances. The ruling did not extend that benefit indiscriminately to every ad hoc appointment. (¶¶ 57-61, 62(vi))
- Previously settled seniority of the five officers covered by OA 156 of 1986 was to be restored. The seventeen Shillong posts of 1983 were governed by the 1959 memorandum; officers actually regularised in 1985 retained that earlier basis, and temporary non-cadre posts carried seniority from promotion or appointment. (¶¶ 62(v), 62(vii)-(ix))
- The High Court decision was set aside and the Tribunal’s decision restored. The final seniority list was to be drawn and published within three months in accordance with the Court’s directions. (¶ 63)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court decision was set aside and the Tribunal’s decision restored. Writ Petition (Civil) 1380 of 2020 was disposed of. The final seniority list was directed to be prepared and published within three months. No order as to costs.