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 Headquarters Civil Service Rules.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface:

1. The central issue which arises for consideration in the above-captioned matters concerns the following i.e., the starting point for the commencement of "approved service" vis-a-vis persons who entered the Assistant Civil Staff Officer Grade via the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination [in short "LDCE"] route.

1.1. It is important to note at the outset that the post of Assistant Civil Staff Officer was renamed as Section Officer and, therefore, hereafter will be referred to as "SO" for the sake of brevity.

2. It is in this context that challenge is laid to the order dated 18.02.2014 passed in O.A.No.1288/2009 and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Review App. Nos.76/2014 and 61/2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"]. These orders in review have been assailed in W.P.(C) Nos.11673/2016 and 2374/2017, respectively.

2.1. Besides this, a challenge is laid to order dated 13.01.2017, passed in O.A.No.2145/2011 and order dated 11.04.2017, passed in R.A.No.80/2017 by the Tribunal. These orders are substantially founded on the order dated 18.02.2014 [referred to in paragraph 2 above] passed by the Tribunal. These orders are assailed in W.P.(C)No.4911/2017. Insofar as W.P.(C)No.6184/2017 is concerned, it not only assails the order dated 13.01.2017, passed in O.A.No.2145/2011 but also seeks issuance of a direction to the official respondents to maintain status-quo vis-a-vis seniority encapsulated in the select list dated 07.04.2011.

3. It is important to note that the orders dated 18.02.2014 [O.A.No.1288/2009] and 10.08.2016 [R.A.Nos.76/2014 & 61/2014] and orders dated 13.01.2017 [O.A.No.2145/2011] and 11.04.2017 [R.A.No.80/2017], were passed by two different benches of the Tribunal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the private respondents in W.P.(C)No.11673/2016, who are beneficiaries of the order dated 18.02.2014 will be referred to as the "successful party" while the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 11673/2016, represented by the Union of India (i.e., the official respondents in the remaining writ petitions) will be referred to as "UOI". Likewise, the petitioners, who, via W.P.(C) No. 2374/2017, W.P.(C) No. 4911/2017 and W.P.(C) No. 6184/2017, assail the orders dated 18.02.2014, 10.08.2016, 14.01.2017 and 11.04.2017 and seek retention of the select list dated 07.04.2011 will be collectively referred to as the "opposite party".

5. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to, broadly, set out the backdrop in which the instant writ actions had been filed in this Court.

Background:

6. To begin with, it would be relevant to advert to the genesis of appointments to the post of SO. The genesis is found in Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968 [hereafter referred to as "1968 Rules"]. These rules were notified on 01.04.1968. Under the 1968 Rules, the modes of appointment were promotion and direct recruitment. 75% of the vacancies were required to be filled via promotion while the remaining 25% had to be filled through direct recruitment based on the results obtained in the Civil Services Examinations.

7. It appears that the dispute involving inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits to the post of SO got resolved by a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 331 [hereaf