SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13761

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A), M. SWAMINATHAN, J
S. Vengadesan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan, Mr. Karthik Rajan
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Mustafa, Mr. R. Parthiban

Seniority in posts filled by quota (3:1 transfer:absorption) fixed by interspersing in ratio from actual appointment dates; excess beyond quota treated ad-hoc; feeder cadre service not counted. (29 words)

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Seniority fixation - Recruitment Rules providing for filling posts of Driver Gr.III by transfer from Police Constables and absorption from Home Guards in 3:1 ratio - Department filled 48 posts exclusively with Police Constables ignoring Home Guards quota - Excess appointments beyond quota treated as ad-hoc - Seniority not to be counted from date of appointment in feeder cadre but from actual date of appointment to Driver post - Seniority and Promotion Rules on deputation/absorption held inapplicable as recruitment by transfer/absorption, not deputation - Impugned seniority list quashed for failing to intersperse in 3:1 ratio and granting seniority from Police Constable dates. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Quota rule violation - Administrative delay in filling quota posts not to disadvantage eligible candidates from reserved stream - Excess appointees in one quota adjusted against future vacancies without seniority benefits for officiating beyond quota. (Paras 4, 14)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, erstwhile Home Guards appointed as Driver Gr.III in 1999 after competency test, challenged final seniority list issued in 2015 placing them below Police Constables appointed in 1998-1999. Department ignored 3:1 ratio, filled all vacancies with Police Constables, granted them seniority from Constable appointment dates despite corrigendum terming it promotion, violating Recruitment Rules.

Findings of Court:
Impugned seniority list quashed. Directed refixation by applying 3:1 ratio (Police Constables:Home Guards) from actual appointment dates to Driver post, with consequential benefits including ACP financial upgradation, promotions, arrears within 3 months.

Issues: Whether seniority list violated 3:1 quota in Recruitment Rules; whether Police Constables' seniority countable from feeder cadre or Driver appointment date; applicability of Central Seniority Rules to transfer/absorption.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment Rules mandating 3:1 ratio must be strictly followed; excess appointments beyond quota deemed ad-hoc without seniority; service in feeder cadre not countable for new post seniority unless rules permit; Central deputation rules inapplicable to transfer/absorption method.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants seek quashing of seniority list and fresh preparation per 3:1 ratio. (Para 1 , 2)
2. 3:1 quota mandatory; excess police constable appointments ad-hoc; seniority from driver appointment date. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. respondents claim compliance with central govt seniority rules and high court directions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. recruitment rules' 3:1 ratio violated; central rules inapplicable; excess appointments invalid. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. quash list; direct fresh 3:1 seniority with consequential benefits. (Para 16 , 17)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member )

This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following relief:

“(i) Quash the Final Seniority List of Driver (PD) Gr.III issued by the Respondent 5, in Memorandum No.407/Pol/Estt-I(A)/A3/2015 dated 18.08.2015;

(ii) Direct the Respondents 4 & 5 to prepare afresh the Seniority List of Driver (PD) Gr.III by-

a) interspersing the Police Constable and Home Guards who were appointed to the post of Driver (PD) Gr.III, in the ratio of 3:1; and 

b) taking into account their actual date of appointment in the post of Driver (PD) Gr.III;

c) to give all consequential benefits such as financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme including arrears of pay; and also

(iii) Pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are as follows:

The applicants were initially recruited as Home Guards in the Police Department of Puducherry during the years 1989, 1990, and 1991. In 1999, they were appointed as Driver (PD) Grade III through a Competency Test conducted by the Department. Originally, the Police Department had two categories of Driver posts: Police Constable (Driver) and Head Constable (Driver). In August, 1993, following a scheme introduced by the Government of India for Staff Car Drivers, the Police Department, Government of Puducherry amalgamated these two categories into a single Driver (PD) Gr.III category, with a graded structure and notified the Recruitment Rules for the restructured position. According to the Recruitment Rules, the post of Driver (PD) Grade III was to be filled by transfers from the grade of Police Constables and by absorption from the grade of Home Guards, in the ratio of 3:1. On the introduction date of this scheme, 01.08.1993, the scale of pay for Police Constables was Rs. 825- 1200, while the Driver position had a higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500. Consequently, appointment of Police Constables to the restructured Driver (PD) Grade III post was considered promotion rather than transfer, as outlined in the Recruitment Rules. However, effective 01.01.1996, both posts were assigned identical pay scales, and from 01.01.2006, Police Constables were placed in a higher Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/-, while Driver (PD) Grade III was assigned a lesser Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. The Police Department filled 48 Driver (PD) Grade III posts—27 in November 1998 and 21 in September, 1999—exclusively with Police Constables, despite the availability of sufficient number of eligible Home Guards.

Subsequently, on 13.10.1999, the Department appointed only 15 Home Guards to the Driver (PD) Grade III position. On 10.08.2001, the Department published a seniority list of Drivers, omitting the names of those appointed from the Home Guards in October, 1999. Another seniority list was issued on 24.04.2008 and finalized on 25.03.2010. The Drivers (PD) Grade III from the Home Guards challenged this seniority list before this Tribunal in OA No. 407/2010. The Tribunal ordered on 27.11.2012 that the list be redone to reflect the seniority as requested for by the applicants. In response, the private respondents appealed to the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 2684/2013. On 13.10.2014, the High Court directed the Department to reconsider the fixation of seniority with not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top