LexSURJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A. SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 9, 1997 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Service Law : Central Secretariat Se1vice Rules, 1962: r. 16 and r. 12 (as amended C by Central Secretariat Se1vice (Second Amendment) Rules, 1984)--<:entral Secretaliat Service-Section Officers-Appointment by direct recntitment and promotion-One-sixth/one-fifth vacancies to be filled by direct recntit- ment-Provisions indicate that the number of vacancies to be filled by sub- stantive appointment of persons included in select list for Section Officer's grade in a recmitment year shall be proportionate to vacancies repmted by D that cadre to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Ref onns to be filled by direct recntitment for the yeal'-Where sufficient number of direct recntit candidates for unfilled vacancies are not available for two recmitment years plior to the recmitment year, all unfilled vacancies will be thrown open to respective quotas, namely, by promotions and vice versa, as the case may E be-The view of the Tlibzmal that preceding the date of amendment the Govemment was devoid of power to cany fo1ward all unfilled vacancies to the direct recmits and that all these vacancies are meant to be thrown open to the promotees, is clearly a misrepresentation of the ntles-Senimity list prepared by the Central Govemment needs to be redone accordingly. F G H.N. Hardasani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 SCR 266, referred to. Central Administrative T1ibunaf-Review-Held, when a patent e1Tor is brought to notice of T1ibunal, it is duty bound to col7"ect with grace its mistake by way of review of its orders/decisions. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3641-42 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.95 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 629/94 and Order dated H 23.5.96 in RA. No. 273 of 1995. 382 - SURJITSINGHv. u.o.r. 383 P.P. Rao, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham, A Aruna & Co. for the Appellants. V.C. Mahajan, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Anil Katiyar, D.C. Vohra and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. B The never-ending dispute between the direct recruits and the C promotees has again surfaced in these appeals. The year 1962 onwards, the Central Secretariat Service Rules (for short, the 'Rules') framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India provided a ratio of 1/6th and 5/6th between the direct recruits and the promotees. On July 1, 1982, the ratio was changed to l/5th and 4/5th between the direct recruits and D the promotees respectively. In the year 1983, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the promotee officers titled H.N. Hardasani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors .. This Court had directed that the unfilled vacancies meant for the direct recruits might be carried forward for over two years and subsequently unfilled vacancies meant for direct recruits might be thrown open for being filled up by the promotees. A statutory shape was given to E the said direction by amending the Rules. In these cases, we are concerned with the Section Officers in the Central Secretariat. When fresh seniority list was being prepared, another writ petition came to be filed titled Amrit Lal & Ors. v. Union of India f!, Ors .. This Court directed therein prepara- tion of the seniority list in the light of the direction giv.:n by this Court F which stood transformed into Amended Rules. Consequently, a seniority list had been prepared giving due placement to the direct recruits and the promotees in accordance with the rota and quota as operating under the Rules. Again, a third round of litigation had been started by filing of an Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal G in the impugned order made in O.A. No. 629 of 1994, on March 22, 1995 and the review order following therefrom on May 23, 1996, has put the clock back, stating that prior to the amendment of the Rules putting two years' limitation on carry forward of the vacancies meant for the direct recruits would mean that earlier to that date the Government of India had no power to carry forward and thereafter, when the Rules had come into H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. l S.C.R. A force, the Government had power to carry forward the vacancies limited to two
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.