K.N.Mishra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3513-14 of 1987.
Petitioner: K.N.Mishra & Ors.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.3513-14 of 1987.
Judges: O.CHINNAPPA REDDY & S.NATARAJAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 17, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services Rules, 1968; Sub rule 6 of Rule 16 – Fixation of seniority as between direct recruits and promotees – Order of Administrative Tribunal following principles of Continuous Officiation whether in conflict with sub rule 6 of Rule 16 – Seniority amongst direct recruits themselves to be determined in accordance with Rule 16(6) but it will not affect the seniority of the promotees which has to be based on Continuous Officiation.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. At the time of granting special leave this Court limited the appeal to the question “whether the principles of Continuous Officiation upon which the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed inter-se seniority to be determined as between direct recruits and promotees to the posts of Assistant Grade IV of the service conflicts with sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rule 1968 which relates to determination of inter-se seniority of the direct recruits.”
2. On a perusal of the order of Administrative Tribunal, we find that what was decided by the Tribunal was only the question of seniority of the direct recruit amongst themselves. That question was left open. The Tribunal observed that sub rule 6 of Rule 16 laid down that direct recruits shall be ranked inter-se in the order of merit in which they were placed at the competitive examination as the results of which they were recruited,the recruits of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those of later examination. The Tribunal also recorded that there was no quarrel about this in petition. Later the Tribunal observed that if there is any discrepancy in fixation of the seniority amongst the direct recruits themselves, it is always open to them to make their representation and for the Government to rectify the errors, if any, without, however, affecting the seniority of promotees who have been declared seniors to the direct recruits on account of their continuous officiation. We do not see any conflict between the direction given by the Tribunal and sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rule, it 1968. We make it clear that seniority amongst direct recruits themselves will be determined in accordance with sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Rules but will not affect the seniority of the promotees in any manner which has to be determined on the basis of continuous officiation. Subject to this observation the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Interim orders are vacated.
Appeals dismissed.
1. At the time of granting special leave this Court limited the appeal to the question “whether the principles of Continuous Officiation upon which the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed inter-se seniority to be determined as between direct recruits and promotees to the posts of Assistant Grade IV of the service conflicts with sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rule 1968 which relates to determination of inter-se seniority of the direct recruits.”
2. On a perusal of the order of Administrative Tribunal, we find that what was decided by the Tribunal was only the question of seniority of the direct recruit amongst themselves. That question was left open. The Tribunal observed that sub rule 6 of Rule 16 laid down that direct recruits shall be ranked inter-se in the order of merit in which they were placed at the competitive examination as the results of which they were recruited,the recruits of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those of later examination. The Tribunal also recorded that there was no quarrel about this in petition. Later the Tribunal observed that if there is any discrepancy in fixation of the seniority amongst the direct recruits themselves, it is always open to them to make their representation and for the Government to rectify the errors, if any, without, however, affecting the seniority of promotees who have been declared seniors to the direct recruits on account of their continuous officiation. We do not see any conflict between the direction given by the Tribunal and sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rule, it 1968. We make it clear that seniority amongst direct recruits themselves will be determined in accordance with sub rule 6 of Rule 16 of the Rules but will not affect the seniority of the promotees in any manner which has to be determined on the basis of continuous officiation. Subject to this observation the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Interim orders are vacated.
Appeals dismissed.
