ABRAHAM JACOB AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 11-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ABRAHAM JACOB AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
FEBRUARY 11, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMED AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Inter se Seniority-Assistant Engineers in 
Telecommunication Department-Direct recruitment till 1969-Set of rules 
C framed-When the rules were in draft form Asst. Engineers cadre vacancies 
filled-50% by direct recruit-And 50% by promotion from among Junior 
Engineers-All these promotions on as hoc basis-Draft rules approved by 
the Govt.-Ad hoc promotions regularized-Fresh seniority list on merit--
Challenged before CAT-Order of CAT to prepare fresh list without quota/ 
rota-On appeal Held: inter se seniority ofpromotees and direct recruits has 
D to be on rotaUon of vacancies and on quota of vacancies reserved-
Government order of Ministry of Home affairs dated 22112159 applicable, 
·before the statutory rules were framed. 
Prior to 1969 Asst Engineers in the Telecommunication department 
were recruited directly. In 1969, a set of rules was framed thereunder it was 
E provided that 50 percent of the vacancies in the post of the Asst. engineer 
will be filled up by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion frpm 
11;mongst junior engineers. On 21st Feb. 1976 draft rules were approved by 
the Government and became statutory rules. During the period when the 
rules were in draft form, the vacancies in the post of Asst. engineers 
F continued to be filled both by direct recruitment as well as promotion on 
50:50 basis by virtue of an administrative decision. All the promotions 
during 1969-1976 were on ad hoc basis. 
Departmental promotion committee in 1978 regularised all ad hoc 
posts, screened all the promotes and drew fresh seniority list on the basis 
G of merit. The promotees who were brought down in the merit list, challenged 
the Government decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The 
seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was claimed on the basis of 
"- , 
continuous service in the rank of Asst. Engineer. The Tribunal accepted the 
claim of the promotees and passed an order quashing the seniority list and 
directing the govt. to draw the fresh seniority list without importing any 
H quota/rota rule for the period prior to 1976. The ~irect recruits were neither 
780 
;. 
ABRAHAM JACOB v. U.0.1 
781 
party not the question of int~r se seniority between the direct recruits and A 
the promotees was under consideration. 
In fact the seniority list of the Asst Engineers promoted and recruited 
for the period 1969 to 1976 was drawn by the Govt on basis of administrative 
decision, as contained in the draft rules and in accordance with clause (6) 
of memorandum dated 22nd Dec. 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home B 
Affairs. 
For the period 1969-1976, when the rules were in draft form the inter 
se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant 
Engineers has to be determined in accordance with the above said Government 
Order, which stipulates that the relative seniority shall be determined C 
according to the rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and 
promotees which shall be based on quota of vacancies reserved for direct 
recruits and promotees respectively. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the 
cadre of Assistant Engineers has to be determined according to the rotation 
of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees which shall be based 
on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruits and promotees 
D 
respectively. (784-G) 
E 
2. The inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, could be 
governed by administrative instructions and as per Clause (6) of the 
Memorandum of Ministry of Home affairs DT. 22/12/1959, in the absence 
of Statutory Rules, which were framed subsequently. (785-A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12386of1996 
Etc. 
From the Jugdment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, at Emakulam in Kerala, in O.A. No. 15of1995. 
M.N. Krishnmani, Ramesh P. Bhatt, N.N. Goswami, Ms. Kumud L. Das, 
S.B.Upadhyay, Harish Chander, S.Wasim A. Qadri, Praveen Swamp, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. Anubha Jain and K.M.K Nair for the 
appearing parties. 
The Jugdment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
\ 
A 
G.B. PATTANAIK, J. These three appeals are directed against the same 
judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Erankulam Bench, one by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.