B.S. MURTHY & ORS versus A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 1
1
B.S. MURTHY & ORS.
v.
A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 2009)
MARCH 15, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, HEMANT GUPTA AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law — Central Excise and Land Customs Group-C
Recruitment Rules, 1979 — Determination of inter-se seniority –
Recruitment to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise was from
two channels : Direct recruitments and promotion from in service
candidates – The ratio between direct recruit inspectors (DRI) and
promoted inspector (PRI) was 3:1 – The inter se seniority was
governed by an office memo dated 22.12.1959 – In view of the
experience, the 1959 OM was changed, another OM was issued,
on 07.02.1986 – Five promoters promoted in 1983-1984 filed an
application challenging the inter se seniority list dated 08.07.1985
on the ground that the length of their continuous service was not
taken into consideration while fixing seniority – CAT directed the
department to recast seniority in accordance with the 1986 OM –
CAT referred the batch of matters to a Full Bench, on the issue as to
whether 1986 OM was prospective or retrospective – Full Bench by
its order clarified that 1986 OM only operated prospectively from
1.3.1986 – Based on the findings of tribunal seniority list of 1993
was quashed – The cadre controlling authority circulated a tentative
seniority list on 01.01.2022 which was finally published on 7.8.2002
– The list was challenged by PRI and the CAT allowed the
applications and set aside the seniority list – Central government
and DRI filed writ petition before the High Court – High court held
that the vacancy register had no relevance for the purpose of
promotion of in-service candidates and such promotions could be
only in proportion to the quota, based on indents placed by the
department with staff selection Board for direct recruitment – Length
of continuous service cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority
– It upheld the impugned seniority list dated 22.07.2002 – In appeal
by PRIs, the main issue was regarding the application of Clauses 4
and 5 of the OM of 1986, whether the ratio of the PRIs has to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
drawn with respect to the indented vacancies for DRIs – Held: No
appointee from any one channel (direct recruits or promotees) can
lay claim to seniority from a date before her or his appointment –
Para 5 of the 1986 OM was meant to cater to a contingency that is
of underreporting direct recruit vacancies to the public service
commission which resulted in an unfair advantage to promotees
who would “steal a march” over such direct recruits, appointed
later – It was in such contingencies, that is, of under-reporting
vacancies, that the consequence of deeming promotions to be ad-
hoc could be resorted to – Materials on record indicate that
promotional vacancies did exist, at the relevant period, there was a
ban on direct recruitment – During that period, no requisitions were
made to the SSC for filling direct recruit vacancies – However, High
Court was wrong in concluding that by virtue of Para 5 of the 1986
OM the promotion made during the same period has to be treated
as in excess of the quota, because they were not in proportions to
the requisition for direct recruitment – This view taken by the High
Court is fallacious and it equates executive policy of not filling
vacancies, due to financial or other compulsions with deliberate
underreporting – In the Instant case, the direct recruitment through
the SSC was not resorted to because of a ban, and not due to under-
reporting – Thus the contingency envisaged under Para 5 never
arose – Not only the were promotions made within the quota, and
were regular, there were regular vacancies, within the promote quota
– No excess promotions took place during the period 1983 and
1991 – Indents/requisitions placed with, the SSC for the recruitment
of DRIs were for a part of the vacancies and not for the exact 75%
of the actual vacancies available in each year – The date of
appointment of direct recruits the date for counting seniority – It is
not from the date of receipt of the dossiers from the recruiting
authorities or the date of recommendation – Resultantly seniority
of direct recruits appointed after 01.03.86 has to be revised only
from the date of their respective appointments but not earlier to
01.03.1986 as was done in the impugned seniority list – Those
promoted ad hoc basis in any year in the vacancies availabl

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