IMPORTANT POINT
Requirement of five years’ regular service “in the respective regions” does not mean five years experience in the region where promotion is sought.

JUDGMENT :

S.A. Bobde, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the impugned common judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.2518 and 2525 of 2011, whereby the High Court affirmed the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam (for short, the ‘Tribunal), dismissing O.A. Nos.723 and 970 of 2010, filed by the private party respondents. The Tribunal held that the appellants do not have the requisite experience in the Kerala region as on the date on which the vacancies were notified, and set aside the inclusion of their names in the rank list for promotion to the post of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer (for short, the ‘EO/AO’). The Tribunal further held that if the private party respondents are otherwise eligible, the official respondents are directed to take steps to consider their rank obtained in the examination and include their names in the appropriate place in the rank list for promotion to the post of EO/AO. The Tribunal also directed that the next available candidate in the rank list should be included in the rank list, according to the rank obtained by them.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows :

The appellants were working as Social Security Assistants (SSAs) in the Karnataka/Tamil Nadu regions of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (for short, the ‘EPFO’). They were transferred to Kerala region and kept at the bottom in the seniority list. The notification was issued to fill up the post of EO/AO in the Kerala region. Both the appellants and the private party respondents participated in the aforesaid examination. Subsequently, the rank list was published. The appellants are at Serial No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 respectively in the rank list and the promotion list. It was contended by the private party respondents that the inclusion of the names of the appellants in these lists is arbitrary and illegal, because they were not eligible.

4. The rule that governs the eligibility of the appellants reads as follows :

5. The appellants as also the private party respondents passed the departmental competitive examination for the post of EO/AO.

Apprehending that the appellants will be promoted earlier, the private party respondents approached the Tribunal by way of filing original applications. The Tribunal allowed the said applications and held that the appellants herein were not treated as qualified for promotion i.e. eligible on the ground that they had not put in five years’ service in the Kerala region of EPFO, having relied on the words in the above quoted Rule which requires five years’ regular service “in the respective regions”.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed original petitions before the High Court which were also dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave.

7. Thus, the only issue before us is whether under the aforesaid Rule, the candidates who seek promotion through departmental competitive examination for the post of EO/AO, should have served, both in their earlier place of posting and their present place of posting for a period of five years, or whether