http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.D. GUPTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   643        1996 SCALE  (2)471

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9768 OF 1996                -----------------------------           (Arising out of SLP (C) No.2293 of 1996)                          O R D E R      Delay condoned. Impleadment is allowed.       Leave granted.      We have  heard the  counsel on both sides. The admitted facts are  that the respondents are promotee-Extra Assistant Directors  [Class   III]   in   Central   Water   Commission Engineering Class-I  Service. Rules were made w.e.f. October 15, 1965.  The Tribunal  in the earlier litigation had found that V.P.  Misra, Extra   Asstt. Director was promoted on ad hoc basis  on March  31, 1978  and he  was  required  to  be confirmed w.e.f.  the date on which vacancy was available to him in  the quota  of promotees.  It is  not in dispute that vacancy had  arisen in the quota of promotees on May 3, 1979 and he  was fitted  into that  vacancy. While  doing so, the appellants had  applied the  principle of rota and quota and determined  inter-se-seniority  of  the  promotees  and  the direct recruits.  Consequently, the  promotees  were  pushed down in the order of their seniority. That led to the second round of  litigation. In  the impugned order dated April 20, 1995 made  in O.A. No.1050/94, the CAT at Delhi had directed the appellants  to determine  the seniority  in the light of the directions  issued by this Court in Civil Appeal arising out of  SLP (C)  No.14389/88  on  April  23,  1991  and  the relevant  rules  applicable  to  the  candidates.  Since  it created confusion  in the  implementation of  the order, the appellants  have  come  before  us  by  special  leave.  The Tribunal in paragraph 5 has stated thus:      "We   find    substance   in    the      submission of  the learned  counsel      for   the   applicants   that   the      intention of  the judgment  of  the      Supreme Court  was to ignore the ad

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    hoc period  prior to the occurrence      of    vacancy.    The    continuous      officiation  period was, therefore,      to  count  only  from  the  date  a      vacancy  in   the  promotees  quota      arose. This  principle has not been      observed   while    preparing   the      impugned  seniority   list,   which      therefore, has to be quashed. In ultimate paragraph 7, this was held thus:      "In view of the above, the Original      Application  is   allowed  and  the      impugned   seniority   list   dated      19.1.1994 is  hereby  quashed.  The      administration  shall   redraw  the      seniority list  taking into account      the observations made."      The question,  therefore, is what will be the principle applicable to  the respondent  and the  direct recruits,  in appeal arising  out of  SLP (C)  No.2293/96. It  is  not  in dispute that  as on  May 3, 1970 the Rules applicable to the candidates were as under:      "5. PROMOTEES          ---------      (i)  The   relative  seniority   of      persons  promoted  to  the  various      grades shall  be determined  in the      order of  their selection  for such      promotion:           Provided  that  where  persons           promoted     initially      on           temporary basis  are confirmed           subsequently   in   an   order           different from  the  order  of           merit indicated at the time of           their   promotion    seniority           shall  follow   the  order  of           confirmation   and   not   the           original order of the merit.      (ii) where  promotions to  a  grade      are made  from more than one grade,      the  eligible   persons  shall   be      arranged in a separate lists in the      order of  their relative  seniority      in   their    respective    grades.      Thereafter,    the     Departmental      Promotion  Committee  shall  select      persons  for  promotion  from  each      list upto  the prescribed quota and      arrange all the candidates selected      from     different   lists   in   a      consolidated order  of merit  which      will determine the seniority of the      persons on  promotion to the higher      grade.      NOTE:If   Separate    quotas    for           promotion  have   not  already           been   prescribed    in    the           relevant  recruitment   rules,           the Ministries/Departments may           do so   now,  in  consultation           with the  Commission  wherever           necessary.      6. RELATIVE   SENIORITY  OF  DIRECT           RECRUITS AND PROMOTERS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

         The  relative   seniority   of      direct recruits  and  of  promotees      shall be  determined  according  to      the rotation of   vacancies between      direct recruits and promotees which      shall be  based  on  the  quotation      vacancies   reserved   for   direct      recruitment      and      promotion      respectively  in   the  Recruitment      Rules." A reading  thereof would clearly indicate that the seniority of the  persons promoted  to the  various  grades  shall  be determined in  the order of the selection for such promotion and the  relative seniority  of the  direct recruits and the promotees shall  be determined  according to the rotation of vacancies between  direct recruits and promotees which shall be based  on the  quota of  various vacancies  reserved  for direct  recruits   and   promotees   respectively   in   the recruitment rules,  The rules  were made in 1959 which would indicate the  fixation of the quota rota as available.  They read thus:-      "These Rules  provided for  filling      up of  60% of posts in the grade of      Assistant   Directors   by   direct      Recruitment,  25%   of   posts   by      promotion  and   15%  of  posts  by      deputation.   The    seniority   of      Assistant Directors was being fixed      as   rota-quota   system   as   per      provisions of  erstwhile Department      of   Personnel   &   Administrative      Reforms O.M.  No.19/11/55-RPS dated      22.12.1959.   While    fixing   the      seniority of  Assistant Directions,      the deputationists  were not coming      to the   picture  and the vacancies      were  rotated  between  the  direct      recruits and  the promotees  in the      following manner:      Point 1      :     Promotee      Point 2,3,4  :     Direct Recruits      Point 5      :     Promotee      Point 6 & 7  :     Direct Recruits      Point 8      :     Promotee      Point9,10,11 :     Direct Recruits      Point 12     :     Promotee      Point 13& 14 :     Direct Recruits      Point 15     :     Promotee      Point 16,  17 :     Direct Recruits                         and so on."      It is  contended by  Shri Krishnamani,  learned counsel for the  respondent-promotees that 1982 statutory rules have been  made   regulating  the  service    conditions  of  the candidates holding the post under the service at the initial constitution of  the service  and  the  existing  candidates became members of the service. Rule 8 thereof prescribes the inter  se   seniority  of  the  candidates.  Those  who  are substantively appointed  to the  posts would  be juniors  to those continuing at the initial constitution of the Service. So  direct  recruits  are  not  seniors  to  the  promotees. Consequentially, the  direct recruits  must be considered to be juniors  to the  promotees since the direct recruits were admittedly recruited  from 1982  onwards after the statutory rules came  into force. It is  contended by Shri Sitaramiah, learned senior  counsel for direct recruits and for Union of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

India that  the contention  is not  correct. So  long as the rota and  quota is  available, the  interpretation should be such that  both rota  and quota should be allowed to operate in their  respective  field;  if  so  operated,  the  direct recruits, though  recruited later, are entitled to be fitted into   the   vacancy   to   which   they   were   recruited. Consequentially, they  may become  seniors in  the seniority list though  they were  appointed later to the promotees who are to  be fitted  in the  very respective quota as and when vacancy arises  within the quota. Thus construed, it must be held that  the direct recruits would gain seniority over the promotees.      In view  of the  respective  contentions  the  question arises whether  the fitment  of seniority  determined by the appellant-Union is  in accordance with the rules? It is seen that the  fitment of  rota and  quota  is  not  specifically provided  in   1982  statutory   rules.  But  it  prescribes admittedly 60%  of the  substantive vacancies for the direct recruits and  40% for  the promotees.  Among the  40% quota, they further  made a  demarcation  in  the  ratio  of  25:15 between the  Extra Assistant Directors and the appointees by transfer. We  are not  concerned with  each  class  in  this case.  Admittedly,  the  promotees  are  entitled  to  their fitment within  25% of  the quota prescribed for them  under the rules.  Since rules  are  silent,  sub-rule  of  Rule  8 clearly mentions  that the  determination  of  seniority  in accordance with  the  rules  of  the  Government  of  India, Ministry  of  Home  Affairs,  Personnel  and  Administrative Reforms Department  will be applicable to the members of the service. It is seen  that under 1957 instructions, the quota and  rota   procedure  has   been  prescribed  as  extracted hereinbefore. In  other words, since the statutory rules are silent as  regards the  fitment of  the rota  and quota  and determination of  the inter-se-seniority, the administrative instructions issued  by the Government, would supplement the rules and accordingly they must be worked out.      It is  seen  that  admittedly  the  vacancies  for  the promotees had  arisen on  May 3,  1979 and  thereafter  V.P. Misra is  entitled to  the vacancy  that arose  on that date Therefore, when the inter-se-seniority is determined between the promotees  to the substantive vacancies that have arisen on May  3,  1979  and  thereafter,  though  the  the  direct recruits were recruited later, their fitment in the order of seniority would  be determined  with reference  the rota and quota  prescribed   under  the   aforestated  administrative instructions and  the statutory  rules It  would appear that the Government of India had worked out the rota and quota in tune with the above rules.      lt is  then contended that the direct recruits & re not born in  the service  when the  promotees were  promoted and equity requires  that they  cannot be pushed down The object of direct  recruitment is  to blend talent and experience to augment efficiency  when direct  recruits, though  came from green pastures  imbued with  dedication and honesty. So long as  system   continues,  consequences  are  inevitable.  The question of  equity does  not arise.  Shri Krishnamani  then contended that  direct recruits  are shown  temporary and so they cannot  be similar  to promotee substantive appointees. The quota  of 60%  of  direct  recruits  is  to  substantive vacancies, though  their initial  appoint is  temporary;  on completion of  period of  probation they  become substantive appointees. That  is the  settled principle  of law  in this behalf. The  Tribunal, therefore,  is not  right  in  giving direction to  consider their  fitment  vis-a-vis  the  order passed by  this  Court  in  their  quota  above  the  direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

recruits.      The  appeals   are  accordingly  allowed  but,  in  the circumstance, without costs.