2022 Supreme(SC) 284

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad)
Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
B.S. Murthy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
A. Ravinder Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 2009 with Civil Appeal No. 3967 of 2009, Civil Appeal Nos. 3969-3982 of 2009, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1380 of 2020
Decided On : 15-03-2022

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had allowed the applications of promotee inspectors (PRIs) and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and promotees. The court held that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Chairperson of the Committee which was constituted pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench (of CAT) submitted its first report to the Chief Commissioner by letter dated 28.3.2000 suggesting that direct recruit/promotee register of Inspectors maintained from 1884 to 1996 should be taken as the basis to arrive at number of vacancies year-wise to determine the seniority since in terms of 1986 OM. The method of calculation of vacancies should be based on vacancy register. The court also 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 respective quota, based on indents placed by the department with the Staff Selection Board for direct recruitment. It also held that length of continuous service followed by regularisation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority since the quota rule had not been infringed.

Fact of the Case:

Recruitment to the posts of Inspectors of Central Excise is from two sources: direct recruitment (to the extent of 75% of the cadre) and promotions (to the extent of 25% of the cadre). Promotions are made from seven feeder grade cadre posts. The rules are silent about the principle on which inter se seniority of DRIs and PRIs is to be fixed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the CAT, which had allowed the applications of PRIs and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and promotees. The court held that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Chairperson of the Committee which was constituted pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench (of CAT) submitted its first report to the Chief Commissioner by letter dated 28.3.2000 suggesting that direct recruit/promotee register of Inspectors maintained from 1884 to 1996 should be taken as the basis to arrive at number of vacancies year-wise to determine the seniority since in terms of 1986 OM. The method of calculation of vacancies should be based on vacancy register. The court also 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 respective quota, based on indents placed by the department with the Staff Selection Board for direct recruitment. It also held that length of continuous service followed by regularisation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority since the quota rule had not been infringed.

Issues: Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the CAT, which had allowed the applications of PRIs and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and promotees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the CAT, which had allowed the applications of PRIs and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and promotees. The court held that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Chairperson of the Committee which was constituted pursuant to the decision of the Full Bench (of CAT) submitted its first report to the Chief Commissioner by letter dated 28.3.2000 suggesting that direct recruit/promotee register of Inspectors maintained from 1884 to 1996 should be taken as the basis to arrive at number of vacancies year-wise to determine the seniority since in terms of 1986 OM. The method of calculation of vacancies should be based on vacancy register. The court also 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 respective quota, based on indents placed by the department with the Staff Selection Board for direct recruitment. It also held that length of continuous service followed by regularisation cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority since the quota rule had not been infringed.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals by the PRIs in the terms of the above findings. The consequential action, by way of drawing and publishing a final seniority list, in accordance with the present findings, shall be completed within three months. The writ petition is also disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order on costs.