Back
High Court Of Delhi
AJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINSTRATION - Respondent
L.P.A. 166 of 1980
Decided On : 02/01/1985
SENIORITIY - DELHI ADMINISTRATION SUBORDINATE (MINISTERIAL/EXECUTIVE) SERVICE RULES, 1967 - RULE 6 (III) - PROMOTION - SENIORITY - MERIT - COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION - QUOTA RULE - ROTATION - DELAY IN HOLDING EXAMINATIONS - INJUSTICE - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - VALIDITY OF RULES - AMENDMENT OF RULES - MERGER OF SERVICES - LACHES AND DELAY - FINAL SENIORITY LIST - REVISED SENIORITY LIST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the seniority list dated 8-5-1978 issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and also the promotion orders dated 20th April, 1978 and 20th January, 1979 promoting some of the respondents from Grade-111 to Giade-ll of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Executive) Service. The petitioners contended that holding of the examinations for the first time in 1973-74 after the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/ Executive) Seivice Rules, 1967 had come into force, and allowing all persons to become eligible between the years 1967 to 1974 to appear for filling the posts which arose as far back as 1967-68 was illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (3) read with Rule 12 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/executive) Service Rules, 1967.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appointments were valid since their inception and in the absence of any seniority rule, the golden rule of seniority on the basis of the continuous officiating service, has been applied. This has avoided any expression on our part as regards the validity of the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the holding of examinations for the first time in 1973-74 after the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/ Executive) Seivice Rules, 1967 had come into force, and allowing all persons to become eligible between the years 1967 to 1974 to appear for filling the posts which arose as far back as 1967-68 was illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (3) read with Rule 12 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/executive) Service Rules, 1967? 2. Whether the petitioners were denied equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to Grade-III in the competitive examination? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to get their seniority from the date of their initial appointment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the quota rule could not be operated since no examinations were held for several years and, therefore, the rule of rotation could not be applied at the initial stage when ad hoc promotions were made. In case it was not possible to fill in the vacancies on the basis of the quota fixed because the second category was not available, then as and when the vacancy would arise the same would have had to be filled on the basis of seniority alone subject of course to rejection of unfit. 2. The court held that the petitioners were not denied equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to Grade-III in the competitive examination. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to get their seniority from the date of their initial appointment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and struck down the seniority list dated 8-5-1978 and directed the Delhi Administration to revise the seniority list giving credit to the petitioners for their continuous officiation in Grade-III from the date of their initial appointment in that Grade.
( 1 ) DIE appellants filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the seniority list dated 8-5-1978 issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and also the promotion orders dated 20th April, 1978 and 20th January, 1979 promoting some of the respondents from Grade-111 to Giade-ll of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Executive) Service. The appellants contended before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that holding of the examinations for the first time in 1973-74 after the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/ Executive) Seivice Rules, 1967 had come into force, and allowing all persons to become eligible between the years 1967 to 1974 to appear for filling the posts which arose as far back as 1967-68 was illegal and contrary to Rule 6 (3) read with Rule 12 of the Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/executive) Service Rules, 1967. It was contended that the carrying forward of all the vacancies since 1967 and holding an examination in 1974 for all the vacancies and allowing all the persons with three years service by 1974 to compete for those vacancies vitiated the right to equality as it suffers for want of rational classification. The petitioners further contended that since the letter inviting applications for the competitive examinations were not circulated to the petitioners, although it was individually circulated to 838 Grade-IV (Executive Officials), the petitioneres were denied equality of opportunity in the matter of promotion to Grade-III in the competitive examination. It was urged that the names of some of the petitioners had not been included in the seniority list of Grade-III officers even though the petitioners were approved tor promotion to Grade-III of the service by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Commitee and were appointed against regular posts. It was contended that the petitioners promotion to Grade-III (Executive) was regular after selection by Departmental Promotion Committee and not fortuitous emergent appointment or a stop gap arrangement and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to get their seniority from the date of their initial appointment.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The appellants were appointed to posts included in Grade-IV (Executive) of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service between the period 1958 to 1960. Respondents No. 3 to 45 were appointed to the posts included in Grade-IV from 25th August. 1962 onwards till 30th October, 1970. The. Delhi Administration Subordinate (Ministerial/executive) Service Rules, 1967 came into force on 10th February,1967. According to Rule 6 (III) recruitment to Grade-II is to be made by promotion from Grade-IV by two methods; (a) 50 per cent on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit; and (b) 50 per cent by promotion of officers of Grade-IV on the basis of merit determined through a competitive examination, Rule 6 (III) (c) determined the method of promotion by way of rotation if the quota was to be operated, It provided that the first vacancy would be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the second vacancy by promotion on the basis of merit determined as a result of examination As it happened no examinations were held till the year 1973. The petitioners were promoted to Grade-III on ad hoc basis. The appointment of the petitioners were made on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Delhi Administration decided to hold the first examination in the 839 A year 1973 and invited particuiars from Heads of Department of the Grade-IV officials desirous of sitting for the test on 16th July, 1973. Whoever had completed three years of service as on 1st August, 1973 in Grade-IV was made eligible to appear for the competitive examination. Though there is some dispute regarding circulation of the said letter to employees in Grade-IV, it is an admitted fact that the petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
