LexDAVLNDER BHATIA AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•· DAVlNDER BHATIA AND ORS. ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 12, 1998 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B Service Law-Seniority-Posts of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk being filled up partly by selection and partly by promotion prior to I 978-After 1978 the appointment to be made only by selection and not by promotion- C Appella:1ts worked as Enqui1y-cum-Reservation Clerks on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement from 1978 to 1982-Services of appellants regularised by way of regular selection process as per the changed policy of Railways- Held, Ad hoc services did not count for seniority and the appellants could not be treated as senior to those who in the meantime had been appointed in accordance with the changed procedure. The appellants were working as Junior Commercial Clerks prior to 1978, during which period the post of Enquiry cum-Reservation Clerk were being filled 25% by way of direct recruitment and 75% by way of promotion. D In 1978, Railways took a decision to give appointment to the post of Enquiry- cum-Reservation Clerk by way on selection only. In view of the changed E policy, seyeral women candidates were appointed either by promotion or by selection in suppression of the claims of the appellants. Subsequently the services of the appellants were continued by subjecting them to regular selection process. The appellants claimed seniority over the women candidates selected to the posts of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks, by filing suits F which were transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The claims of the appellants were rejected by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : The post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk is a selection post G and therefore the Railway Administration would be entitled to select competent persons to man the cadre. As it appears, prior to 1978, 25% of the posts were being filled up by way of direct recruitment·but rest of the 75% posts were being filled up by giving promotion to those Junior Commercial Clerks, who were exercising their option and also were giving a declaration that they H 343 . 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) 3 S.C.R. A would not revert back to the commercial side. But in 1978, the Policy was changed and the Government dtcided to fill up the post by direct recruitment by women cand;dates only. The appellants, no doubt, have been brought to the reservation side prior to 1978 but admittedly there had been no process of selection in their case and they were posted as Enquiry-cum-Reservation B Clerk on ad hoc basis as a stop gap arrangement. The post of Enquiry-cum- Reservation Clerk being a selection post, persons like the appellants who were posted against those posts without going through t.he process of selection, on ad hoc basis, do not have a right to be in the cadre until and unless they are duly regularised after going through a process of selection. In the instant case, this process of selection was made only in the year 1982 and C the appellants have been absorbed in the cadre of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk after being duly selected. In this view of the matter, their continuance on ad hoc basis from 1978 to 1982 cannot be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk nor can they be held senior to the women candidates who were directly recruited as Enquiry- cum-Reservation Clerks under the changed policy by undergoing a process D of selection. [350-G-H; 351-A-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2733of1991 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.90 of the Central Administrative E Tribunal, Delhi in T.A. No. 691186 (Suit No. 765-A of 1985). F B.B. Sawhney, (NP) and Anis Suhrawardy for the Appellants. V.C. Mahajan, Rajiv Nanda, Arvind Kr. Sharma and S.R. Bhat for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Both these appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi dated 7.12.1990 disposing of the two suits filed before the sub-Judge, Delhi but stood G transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with Sec:ion 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The plaintiffs in both these suits who are the appellants herein have been working as Commercial Class-III staff in the Grade of 260 - 430. The post of Enquiry and Reservation Clerk was i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.