ORDER

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

1.23 similarly situated applicants have filed the instant OA under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

“a. Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 08/04/2016 and 11/11/2016 placed at Annexure A/1 and A/2 respectively and

b. Direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the applicants as Section Officers (Accounts) from the date when they were appointed to the service and in the order of their merit of selection and

c. Consider the eligibility for promotion as whether for AAO/AO/Sr. AO for promotion accordingly and

d. Further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for all further promotions counting their seniority from the date when they joined the service instead of the date when they passed the SAS exam

e. Accord all consequential benefits.

f. Award costs of the proceedings; and

g. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants.”

2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were selected through the Staff Selection Commission in the recruitment process conducted in the year 1998 for the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in the Defence Accounts Department. Pursuant to their selection, they were appointed during the years 1998–1999 and were initially designated as SAS Apprentices during the period of probation. As per the recruitment notification and appointment conditions, the applicants were required to clear the Departmental Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) Examination comprising Part-I and Part-II within the prescribed chances during probation, failing which they were liable to be discharged from service. After successfully qualifying the departmental SAS Examination, the applicants were confirmed as Section Officers (Accounts). Subsequently, with the implementation of the 6^th CPC, the cadre of Section Officer (Accounts) came to be merged with the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. The dispute in the present OA pertains to the determination of seniority and eligibility for promotion. The counsel for the applicants contended that their service should be counted from the date of their initial appointment pursuant to direct recruitment, whereas the respondents have reckoned their seniority only from the date of confirmation after passing the SAS Examination. Aggrieved by the orders dated 08.04.2016 and 11.11.2016 whereby the respondents have refused to count the probationary service rendered prior to passing the SAS Examination for purposes of seniority and promotion, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking quashing of the said orders and consequential benefits.

3. The counsel for the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-

“A. The impugned orders/actions of the respondents are absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unjustified.

B. There is no rule based on which the respondents deny the counting of the initial service. The applicants respectfully submit that there is no valid reason or justification available with the respondents to not to count the initial service of the applicants for purposes of seniority and other intents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench judgment i.e. Direct Recruit Engineers case (reported as JT 1990 (2) SC 264) has already held to the effect that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rules, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. Furthermore, DoP&T vide OM dated 04/11/1992 has also stated that the seniority of a person regular appointed to a post according to rule would be determined by the order of merit indicated at the time of initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation. The applicants submit that the respondents have not even assigned inter-se seniority in the order of mer