Santosh Kumar Roy & Others vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants were selected and appointed as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, through the process of direct recruitment. The next promotion is to the post of Superintendent. Under the Recruitment Rules, the eligibility for promotion is eight years of service in the feeder category.

The applicants contend that several juniors to them in the post of Inspector are promoted as Superintendent, and though the DOP&T issued OM dated 25.03.1996 providing for relaxation of the requirement as to the standing in the feeder category to the extent of half, subject to maximum of two years in case any junior was promoted; they are not extended the benefits there under.

Reference is made to the judgment of this Tribunal in Garima Singh Vs. Union of India in OA No.3278/2010 dated 09.05.2011 rendered by a Full Bench and the judgment in Punkaj Narayan and Others vs. Union of India and Ors. in O.A. 4702/2018.

The applicants contend that once the Full Bench of this Tribunal held that the direct recruited Inspectors are entitled to the benefit under the OM dated 25.03.1996, there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to deny their claim. They complain that despite all these factors in their favour, the respondents issued an order dated 02.05.2017 rejecting their claim stating that the instructions issued by DOP&T cannot override the statutory rules.

On behalf of respondents a detailed counter affidavit is filed opposing the O.A. It is stated that the promotions are governed by the recruitment rules and unless they are amended, no relaxation can be granted in favour of the applicants.

We heard Shri Mallari S. Rao and Shri Vijay K Verma, learned counsel on behalf of the applicants and Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

There are two methods of appointment to the post of Inspector in the Central Excise Department. First is by direct recruitment and second is by promotion. The applicants are appointed to the post of Inspector through direct recruitment. The next promotion is to the post of Superintendent. There is stipulation under the Recruitment Rules to the effect that, Inspectors are eligible for promotion on completion of eight years of service.

The question pertaining to the seniority between direct recruitees on the one hand and the promotees on the other, was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar 2012 (13) SCC 340. It was held that in case the process of direct recruitment is delayed, the selected candidates are entitled to seniority over the promotees, even if promotions have taken place at an earlier point of time for the recruitment year. It is a different matter that this judgment is found to be not a good law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghachandra's case.

The applicants were extended the benefit of judgment of N.R. Parmar (supra) and assigned seniority over the promotees of the relevant year. In the context of promotion to the post of Superintendent, the promotee Inspectors of the concerned year with eight years of service were eligible, whereas the applicants do not have that length of service.

The DOP&T issued OM dated 25.03.1996 providing for relaxation to the extent of half of the residency period subject to maximum of two years, in case a junior to an employee in the feeder category is promoted and the senior does not fulfill the requirement as to the length of service. The Department of Central Excise refused to extend the benefit under the said OM to the directly recruited Inspectors by taking the plea that unless the Recruitment Rules are amended, they cannot become eligible. This issue was dealt with by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Garima Singh (supra) and the plea of the respondents was rejected. It was directed that the benefit of the OM be extended to the directly recruited Inspectors. The said judgment is said to have become final with the withdrawal of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The same was followed in Punkaj Narayan (supra).

Notwithstanding these developments, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 against the Recruitment Rules. The respondents cannot ignore the adjudication that has taken place on that very issue.

We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned order. We direct the respondents to extend the benefit of OM dated 25.03.1996 to the applicants also for promotion to the post of Superintendent. It shall be only for the fixation of their place in the seniority list on the basis of merit. The applicants shall, however, not be entitled to any monetary benefits.

Pending M.As., if any, shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.