Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10902
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohan Pyare, A, Rajnish Kumar Rai, J
Karunesh Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Director General (Secretary, DARE), ICAR – Respondent
Original Application No.299 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Virendra Singh
For the Respondents:Shri Rajneesh Sharma for respondent nos. 1 to 3
Merit ranks must be upheld for seniority, but administrative discretion governs postings and pay structures; discrepancies post-recruitment are acceptable as per established cadre principles.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 19 - Challenge to administrative orders regarding seniority and pay scale - Applicant claims superior merit rank yet faces discrepancies in seniority list due to selection and posting policies - Court considers principles of seniority in government services and prior judgments relevant to the claims. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 16, 18)
(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Disparities in pay scale arising post implementation of the 6th Pay Commission - Court rules that while merit-based seniority is crucial, administrative discretion often dictates final postings and hierarchical structures. (Paras 10, 11, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicant applied for administrative redress due to discrepancies in the combined seniority list of Assistant Administrative Officers, arguing that merit and selection were not upheld.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the supervisory authority's decision, highlighting the distinction between seniority in different cadres and the lack of merit application in postings during the recruitment period.
Issues: Key questions revolved around seniority discrepancies, merit recognition, and administrative compliance in recruitment and posting practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's previous rank does not inherently entitle him to redress due to the administrative body’s autonomous discretion in appointing based on variables beyond initial merit.
Result: O.A. dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's merit rank is contested against seniority list discrepancies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments highlight alleged discriminatory practices in seniority listings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court discusses administrative discretion in candidate postings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court affirms separate cadre distinctions in promotions and seniority. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. overall decision hinges on adherence to administrative principles over claims of merit. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:
“(A) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order F.No.Admn.3-2/2012-Estt.I dated 09.03.2020. (Annexure No. 10 of O.A. compilation No.1).
(B) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned final combined Seniority list of Assistant Administrative Officers issued on 17.03.2020 (Annexure No.10A of O.A. compilation No.1).
(C) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare combined seniority list of all the Assistants-2007 batch as applicant has also passed the same examination i.e. SSC-CGL-2004 with higher rank than the private respondents.
(D) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide equal promotional opportunities to the applicant which has been giving to the other private respondents at ICAR Headquarter.
(E) To issue an order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (F) To award cost to the applicant.”
2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant joined the ICAR-IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly as Assistant on 31.03.2008 by qualifying Combined Graduate Level Exam-2004 conducted by Staff Selection Commission. In the year 2014, the ICAR Headquarter issued notification for All India Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment to the vacant posts of Assistant in the ICAR and its research Institute and in page-3 Note-I the ICAR Headquarter specifically mentioned that all the postings will be finalised by the ICAR on the basis of final merit list of the candidates notified by the ASRB. The ICAR issued the final provisional list of Assistant Administrative Officer of ICAR institutes of all over India on 02.09.2019 and as per the applicant, the discrepancy in the same is that the name of Shri Satyendra Kumar, AAO, IARI is shown at sl.no.144 but the name of the applicant is shown at sl.no. 186 though Shri Satyendra Kumar bearing Rank no.71 in SSC CGL Exam-2004 was junior to the applicant whose rank was 65 in the list of finally selected candidates of the Combined Graduate level Exam-2004. The applicant filed several representations in this regard and also approached this Tribunal through O.A./1356/2019 which was decided on 24.12.2019 with the direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the applicant dated 04.11.2019 within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Respondents then passed the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 rejecting the claim of the applicant made in his representation dated 04.11.2019. Thereafter, on 17.03.2020, the impugned final combined seniority list of Assistant Administrative Officers was published.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has higher merit than all the private respondents. Applicant's rank is 65, rank of private respondent nos.4,5,6,7,8,9 are 68,77,81,84,85,71 respectively. The applicant and private respondent no.9 have been posted in ICAR institutes and other private respondent nos.4 to 8 have been posted at ICAR Head Quarter. Combined seniority list of AAO (Assistant Administrative Officers) are prepared for All India ICAR institutes in which applicant's name is at serial no.176 and na
