IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Ram Nagina Prasad & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5259 of 2019 & CM Appls.23260 of 2019; 38322 of 2022 & 38323 of 2022, W.P.(C) 8454 of 2019 & CM Appls. 34889 of 2019; 34892 of 2019; 32074 of 2022 & 38474 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 8616 of 2019 & CM Appls. 35622 of 2019; 35625 of 2019; 32075 of 2022; 38603 of 2022 & 38604 of 2022
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Seniority Quota - Central Secretariat Clerical Service - CSCS Rules, 1962, O.M. dated 03.05.2012 - The judgment pertains to the determination of seniority of UDCs in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) under the Seniority Quota and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) Quota. The court analyzed the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which extended the Select List Year 2003 of UDCs by including the names of additional 2151 UDCs against the vacancies caused in the grade of UDCs for the Select List Year 2003. The court found that the promotions granted were based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which indicated a fair method of filling up posts. The court also considered the decisions in Ravinder Kumar Jha and Pankaj Kumar Mishra, where it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to a promotee so as to affect the seniority rights of an existing member of a cadre. The court directed the respondents to implement the O.M. dated 03.05.2012 and place those LDCs who have been promoted to the post of UDC after accrual of 2151 vacancies below those who have been promoted to the post of UDC in the years 2004-2009, whether under Promotion Quota or LDCE Quota.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the determination of seniority of UDCs in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) under the Seniority Quota and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) Quota. The dispute arose from the promotions granted based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which extended the Select List Year 2003 of UDCs by including the names of additional 2151 UDCs against the vacancies caused in the grade of UDCs for the Select List Year 2003.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotions granted were based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which indicated a fair method of filling up posts. The court also considered the decisions in Ravinder Kumar Jha and Pankaj Kumar Mishra, where it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to a promotee so as to affect the seniority rights of an existing member of a cadre. The court directed the respondents to implement the O.M. dated 03.05.2012 and place those LDCs who have been promoted to the post of UDC after accrual of 2151 vacancies below those who have been promoted to the post of UDC in the years 2004-2009, whether under Promotion Quota or LDCE Quota.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of seniority of UDCs in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service (CSCS) under the Seniority Quota and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) Quota, based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the promotions granted were based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which indicated a fair method of filling up posts. The court also considered the decisions in Ravinder Kumar Jha and Pankaj Kumar Mishra, where it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to a promotee so as to affect the seniority rights of an existing member of a cadre. The court directed the respondents to implement the O.M. dated 03.05.2012 and place those LDCs who have been promoted to the post of UDC after accrual of 2151 vacancies below those who have been promoted to the post of UDC in the years 2004-2009, whether under Promotion Quota or LDCE Quota.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to implement the O.M. dated 03.05.2012 and place those LDCs who have been promoted to the post of UDC after accrual of 2151 vacancies below those who have been promoted to the post of UDC in the years 2004-2009, whether under Promotion Quota or LDCE Quota.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The above captioned first and second petitions [W.P.(C) 5259/2019 & W.P.(C) 8454/2019] have been preferred by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 09.01.2019 in O.A.639/2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as the "Tribunal").
2. The above captioned third petition [W.P.(C) 8616/2019] has been preferred by petitioner-Union of India seeking quashing of order dated 09.01.2019 in O.A. 4700/2015 passed by CAT.
3. Since challenge in these petitions is to common impugned order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Tribunal, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The background of these petitions, as spelt out in W.P.(C) 5259/2019, is that Central Secretariat Clerical Service (`CSCS.) in the Central Secretariat has two grades of posts viz. Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) and Senior Secretariat Assistant (SSA) and is governed by CSCS Rules, 1962. That is the only feeder cadre for Central Secretariat Service (`CSS.) which includes the post of Assistant Section Officer, Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Director; they are governed by CSS Rules, 2009. A separate cadre unit has been constituted in respect of both services i.e. CSCS and CSS for each Ministry of Government of India and DOPT is the Cadre Controlling Authority in respect of them.
5. Prior to implementation of the recommendation of First Cadre Restructuring Committee of CSS, 85% of JSAs inducted in Select List of every year were recruited through Staff Selection Commission on all India basis and top rankers in the examination were posted in the Central Secretariat as erstwhile Lower Divisional Clerks (LDC). Direct recruitment for this post had been stopped for the Select List 2000 onward vide DoPT O.M. dated No.9/2/2003-CS-II dated 20.04.2005.
6. The promotions are made in Central Secretariat Services each year through Select List and as per rules, the Select List for a year consists of the vacancies arising during the period from 1st July of that year to 30th June of the following year. The promotional post for JSA of Central Secretariat Clerical Service is the post of SSA which is filled up by two modes of promotion viz 75% by seniority-cum-fitness from eligible JSAs having 8 years of approved service in the post and 25% from JSAs having rendered 5 years of services in the post through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
7. It is further averred in the petition that Government of India constituted a Committee in 2001 which submitted their report in February, 2002. This was the first such committee who made recommendations for restructuring of the cadre of CSS including its feeder cadre of CSCS. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee and with approval of cabinet as well as DoPT, new posts in Central Secretariat Services were added in the total sanctioned strength of Director, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Section Officer of CSS, which were considered from the select list of 2003 and promotions in all the aforesaid Grades were made from time to time between 2005 to 2009 from the said Select List of the year 2003.
8. Thereafter, the Government of India constituted another committee in April, 2009 to ascertain the exact vacancies arising against Select List Year of the 2003 in the erstwhile Assistant Grade. According to the committee, there existed 2151 (1469 chain of vacancies percolated down from promotions in higher posts and 682 vacancies restored) vacancies and it recommended to fill up these vacancies. The DoPT filled up these 2151 vacancies from eligible erstwhile UDC out of the Select List of 2003. Thereafter, the Unions requested to DoPT to fill up the 2151 chain vacancies to the grade of UDC from the erstwhile stagnating LDCs as per Select List of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotions granted based on the O.M. dated 03.05.2012, which extended the Select List Year 2003 of UDCs, indicated a fair method of filling up....
Eligibility for promotion under conflicting recruitment rules must prioritize service years and proper seniority lists as determined by precedent.
The Tribunal correctly held that approved service for LDCE appointees starts from January 1 of the examination year, not the anticipated vacancy year, ensuring compliance with the Armed Forces Headqu....
The court reaffirmed that temporary or ad-hoc promotions do not confer seniority rights, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rules for public service appointments.
Promotions in service are effective only from the date granted, not retrospectively, unless explicit rules allow such actions.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
The seniority of candidates appointed from the Reserve List does not rank senior to the candidates initially recommended/appointed in terms of the first recommendation of the UPSC, as they possess hi....
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.