2016 Supreme(Del) 4193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA and NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – Petitioners
Versus
SANDIP KUMAR ROY AND OTHERS – Respondents
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 12192 of 2015
Decided On : 10-05-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaswinder Singh & Ms. Shipra Shukla, with Mr. Rajeshwar Paul.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyan Prakash & Mr. Padmesh Kataria.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of addressing unintended anomalous situations through the power of relaxation in service law, particularly in restoring seniority and addressing hardship and injustice.
Headnote:
Seniority - Promotion - Geological Survey of India - 1967 Rules, 2010 Rules - Rule 8, Note V - The judgment discusses the seniority and promotion of Sandip Kumar Roy, a Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India, and the application of the 1967 Rules and the 2010 Rules, particularly Rule 8 and Note V, in determining his eligibility and seniority for promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior). The court emphasizes the importance of seniority and eligibility in service law and the need to address unintended anomalous situations through the power of relaxation.
Fact of the Case:
Sandip Kumar Roy, a Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India, was delayed in joining the post due to a stay order. Subsequently, he faced issues with seniority and promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior). The court analyzed the application of the 1967 Rules and the 2010 Rules, particularly Rule 8 and Note V, in determining his eligibility and seniority for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sandip Kumar Roy faced unjust consequences due to fortuitous circumstances and the delayed incorporation of the mandate prescribed in the OM in the Recruitment Rules. It emphasized the need to address unintended anomalous situations through the power of relaxation and restore his original seniority in line with the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'.
Issues: The issues revolved around the determination of Sandip Kumar Roy's seniority and eligibility for promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior) in the Geological Survey of India, considering the delay in his appointment and the application of the 1967 Rules and the 2010 Rules, particularly Rule 8 and Note V.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of the 1967 Rules and the 2010 Rules, particularly Rule 8 and Note V, in addressing the unintended anomalous situations faced by Sandip Kumar Roy and the need to restore his original seniority through the power of relaxation.
Final Decision: The court directed the Government to consider the exercise of power of relaxation in terms of Rule 13 of the 2010 Rules read with the 1969 Rules to address the hardship and injustice faced by Sandip Kumar Roy, emphasizing the need to correct and not perpetuate harm and injustice.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Union of India, through Director General, Geological Survey of India and the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 13th October, 2014 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal, for short) in OA No. 4260/2012.
2. The impugned order directs the petitioners to consider Sandip Kumar Roy for promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior) from the date his juniors were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) and promoted. Sandip Kumar Roy, if found suitable would be promoted and accorded all consequential benefits, except back wages.
3. The facts are:- (a) Sandip Kumar Roy was selected as a Geologist (Junior), Group A post in the Geological Survey of India. (b) The said examination/selection was conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (c) Sandip Kumar Roy was 25th in the order of merit in the select list published in October, 1999. (d) In the year 2000, appointment letters were issued to some of the selected candidates including those junior to Sandip Kumar Roy and many of them joined and were appointed as Geologist (Junior). (e) Some Assistant Geologists seeking promotion as Geologist (Junior) filed a petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal and by interim order dated 16th October, 2000 recruitment of the selectees was interjected and stayed (f) As a result, Sandip Kumar Roy could not be appointed and join as Geologist (Junior). (g) The stay order was vacated on 6th May, 2002 and Sandip Kumar Roy was issued appointment letter dated 15th May, 2002. (h) Sandip Kumar Roy joined the post of Geologist (Junior) on 13th August, 2002.
4. The Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal conscious and aware that their stay order had grave consequences and would have adversely affected candidates and promotees whose appointments were delayed, in their order dated 16th October, 2000, while disposing of the petition observed:-
“4. Consequent to the Tribunal’s order dated 16.10.2000, 8 direct recruits of 1998 and 33 of 1999 and 8 of 2000 could not be given promotion. Now the respondents have vide order dated 22.3.2002 promoted 52 Assistant Geologist to the post of Geologist (Junior). This list includes the four applicants of the present O.A. The order dated 22.3.2002 however, proves that the promotion will take effect from date of assumption of charge of the post of Geologist (Junior) in the GSI by the officer concerned after communication of the order. As applicant now has been promoted there would be no bar to the respondents to give appointments to the direct recruits to the post of Geologists (Junior).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant however raised a grievance of seniority w.e.f. the availability of the vacancy with consequential benefits. As the applicants have now been promoted to the post of Geologist (Junior), it would be appropriate for the respondents to consider the question of seniority of the applicant as per extant rules on the subject and thereafter to pass an appropriate order. It would be open for the applicant in case of any grievance, approach this Tribunal again. The question of seniority therefore is left for decision by the appropriate authority. The applicants may therefore, individually make detailed representation to the appropriate authority with regard to their claim of seniority which would be decided by the appropriate authority within a reasonable period of time.
6. The OA is disposed of as above without any order as to costs.”
5. In the seniority list/gradation list of Geologist (Junior) issued on 1st July, 2005, Sandip Kumar Roy was allocated seniority at serial No. 112, which was in accord with his UPSC merit list ranking at serial No. 25. Thus, Sandip Kumar Roy had not suffered loss of seniority, which was protected.
6. As per the Geological Survey of India, including Exploration Wing (Class I and Class II Posts) Recruitment