Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
Sushil Pradhan and Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondents
WP(C) No.30 of 2016
Decided On : 25-01-2021
The Petitioners, Accounts Officers, challenged their seniority and sought to be placed above the Directly Recruited Accounts Officers. The State-Respondents contended that the Petitioners were promoted on an officiating basis and their confirmation was delayed due to non-availability of substantive vacancies. The Court held that the Petitioners were entitled to seniority from the date of their officiating promotion as the delay in confirmation was not attributable to them. The Court also held that the Quota Rota Rule was not broken down and the Relaxation Clause was invoked, validating the Petitioners' appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, Accounts Officers, challenged their seniority and sought to be placed above the Directly Recruited Accounts Officers. The State-Respondents contended that the Petitioners were promoted on an officiating basis and their confirmation was delayed due to non-availability of substantive vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioners were entitled to seniority from the date of their officiating promotion as the delay in confirmation was not attributable to them. The Court also held that the Quota Rota Rule was not broken down and the Relaxation Clause was invoked, validating the Petitioners' appointments.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to seniority from the date of their officiating promotion? 2. Whether the Quota Rota Rule was broken down?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioners were entitled to seniority from the date of their officiating promotion as the delay in confirmation was not attributable to them. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, which held that an employee appointed to a post according to Rules would be entitled to get his Seniority reckoned from the date of his appointment and not from the date of its confirmation. 2. The Court held that the Quota Rota Rule was not broken down and the Relaxation Clause was invoked, validating the Petitioners' appointments. The Court relied on the principles laid down in N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1977) 1 SCC 308, which held that the Quota Rule is not broken down until serious efforts are made by the Government to recruit from the open market.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State-Respondents to grant seniority to the Petitioners from the date of their officiating promotion and to prepare a Seniority List accordingly. The Court also held that the Petitioners No.2 and 3, who had retired during the pendency of the Writ Petition, were entitled to receive the same benefits as granted to the Petitioners herein, during their time in Service, for the purposes of their retirement benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The discontentment of the Petitioners arises on account of their appointment and retention on Officiating basis from 08.05.2008 in the posts of Accounts Officers despite alleged existing Substantive vacancies, confirming them in the posts only on 16.03.2013, thus, depriving them of regular Promotion and Service Seniority, as against the Respondents No.7 to 17 directly recruited as Accounts Officers in January/February, 2009, who have been ranked higher than the Petitioners in the inter se Seniority. 1.(a) They are further aggrieved that the Respondents No.4, 5 and 6, who had appeared in the same Departmental Examination as them in the year 1997, were promoted on 24.12.1997 as Senior Accountants from the Panel prepared for such Promotion. On 05.02.2005, the same Respondents were further promoted as Accounts Officers on Officiating capacity while the Petitioners No.1, 2 and 8 despite possessing similar requisite qualifying years of Service, were excluded citing lack of vacancy. The said Respondents were promoted on Substantive capacity as Accounts Officers on 21.01.2009 and as Senior Accounts Officers on Officiating basis on 11.02.2011. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 were promoted as Senior Accountants in 1998, the Petitioner No.8 in 1999 and the remaining Petitioners only on 27.06.2000.
1.(b) It is the Petitioners’ case that they were, in fact, eligible for Promotion as Accounts Officers in 2004-2006 itself, having then put in the requisite years of Service required by the Rules as Senior Accountants. When the Cadre strength of Accounts Officers was 77 (seventy-seven), there were adequate vacancies to accommodate them in Substantive capacity, which would have made them seniors to the 11 (eleven) Direct Recruits who were appointed in January/February, 2009, allegedly from the same Cadre strength of 77 (seventy-seven) and promoted as Officiating Senior Accounts Officers on 11.01.2013 after only four years of Service, as against the required number of six years, mandated by the Rules. In December, 2008, the Cadre strength was increased from 77 (seventy-seven) to 103 (one hundred and three), resulting in 26 (twenty-six) new vacancies but it was only on 16.03.2013, that the Petitioners were confirmed in the Substantive posts of Accounts Officers. The Petitioners No.1, 2 and 8 along with one M.R. Chettri, were promoted as Senior Accounts Officers on Officiating capacity on 22.05.2014, leaving out the remaining Petitioners who possessed the requisite qualification and merit.
1.(c) The Petitioners speculate that had they been promoted as Accounts Officers in 2004-2006, by 2013, they could well have been promoted as Senior Accounts Officers in the 12 (twelve) vacancies in the said posts, but vide a Notification dated 21.06.2013, these 12 (twelve) posts were downgraded to that of Accounts Officers, allegedly for the purpose of appointing Direct Recruits as Accounts Officers. Ultimately, no Direct Recruit came to be appointed to the downgraded posts but were then filled by way of Promotion. Thus, the policy of Promotions adopted by the State-Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has been prejudicial to the Petitioners. On approaching the Respondent No.3, their prayers were declined, while steps taken by the Respondent No.1 to mitigate their grievances on their request led to their confirmation in March, 2013, by which time, the Respondents No.7 to 17 had already stolen a march against them in terms of Seniority. That, although Petitioners No.2 and 3 have retired during the pendency of the instant Writ Petition, they seek enforcement of their legal rights.
1.(d) Hence, the prayers in the Petition, as extracted hereinbelow;
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
