Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
H K Joshi vs M/O Youth Affairs & Sports on 22 May, 2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.2714/2017
Order reserved on : 11.05.2023
Order pronounced on : 22.05.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. H.K. Joshi, Aged: 54 years
S/o Late R.K. Joshi,
Working as Assistant,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi-110 003.
R/o Block No. 14, House No. 831,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi -110003
2. Arun Kumar, Aged: 53 years
S/o- Late H.C. Sharma,
Working as Assistant,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi-110 003.
R/o K-376, Kangra Niketan Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110018.
3. Raj Kumar Purthi, Aged 54 years
S/o- Shri S.L. Purthi
Working as Assistant,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110 003.
R/o 14/1, 1st Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019.
4. Ms. Indu Arora, aged 59 years
Wife of Shri Yashopal Arora
Working as Assistant,
Sports Authority of India,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110 003.
R/o E-87, B.K. Dutt Colony, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Yogesh Sharma )
2
O.A.No.2714/2017
Versus
1. Union of lndia through the Secretary,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-|10 011.
2. The Director General,
Sports Authority of lndia,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N. Stadium, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Sports Authority of lndia,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Dellhi.
4. Regional Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi.
5. Ms. Kulwant Kaur,
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N. Stadium, New Delhi.
6. Ms. Harinder Chauhan,
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
7. Shri Brij lal,
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sportss
J.N. Stadium, New Delhi
8. Ms. Rama Sharma,
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
3
O.A.No.2714/2017
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N. Stadium, New Delhi.
9. Sh. Anil Kumar,
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
10. Ms. Neeta Rani.
Working as Office Supdt.,
NS NIS Patiala,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
11. Sh. Kh.Olempic Singh,
Working as Assistant,
NERC Imphal,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
12. Sh. AnilKumar CR,
Working as Assistant,
NSWC Gandhi Nagar,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
13. Sh. Prempur S. Goswami,
Working as Assistant,
NSWC Gandhi Nagar,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
4
O.A.No.2714/2017
14. Ms. Alshabi,
Working as Assistant,
NSSC Bangalore,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N. Stadium, New Delhi.
15. Sh. Shirly. S.
Working as Assistant,
LNCPE, Trivandrum,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
16. Mrs. Uma Kittu,
Working as Assistant,
NSSC Bangalore,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi.
17. Sh. Jojan PP,
Working as Assistant,
LNCPE, Trivandrum.,
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
18. Ranjit Singh Mann,
Working as Assistant,
NSWC. Gandhi Nagar.
Through the Deputy Director (Pers.)
Sports Authority of India,
Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports
J.N.Stadium, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri Harshit Jain with Shri Prakhar
Sharma)
5
O.A.No.2714/2017
(ORDER)
By Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) :
The applicants, aggrieved by a seniority list circulated on 22.03.2017, have approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Quash the impugned Circular No.
SAI/Pers/1298/2007 (Pt.)/460 dated
22.03.2017 issued by Respondent No. 4
(office of the Respondent No. 2) enclosing therewith the Provisional Seniority List of Assistants working in SAI Head Office and in various Regional Centres (Annex. A/1) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list to the post of Assistant on Regional/centre/Head office wise with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) Also quash Office Order No. 151/
2017 dated 17.05.2017 issued by
Respondent No. 4 (office of the Respondent No. 2) thereby promoting the Assistant (Private respondent No.5 to 10) to the post of Office Superintendent in the Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + GP-Rs.4200.- from the date they assume the charge of the alleged higher post (Annex, A/2') with all the consequential benefits.
(iii) Grant the cost of this application to
the applicants; and
(iv) to pass such other order and/ or
direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
6O.A.No.2714/2017
2. The Learned Counsel for the applicants, narrating the history and background of the instant Original Application states that, the applicants belong to the ministerial staff of Sports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as SAI), and are at present holding the post of Assistant. It is the case of the applicants that in view of the rules, terms and conditions of employees of SAI, the seniority of Assistants is to be maintained on Regional/Sub Centre or Head Office basis. He draws attention to Para 2.2 of the Circular/Advertisement (Annexure-A/3) to the OA. In contravention to this circular, the respondents have issued the impugned seniority list of Assistants on all India basis, thus, severely jeopardizing the prospects of the applicants for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent.
3. Countering this argument, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention to the averments made in his counter reply, specifically, reply to para 4.2 and para 4.3 of the OA. He submits that the seniority of Assistants has been determined on all India basis, in terms of DoP&T instructions on the subject which is the nodal department of the Union of India in service matters, particularly DoP&T order dated 17.04.2009 bearing the subject "Classification of posts under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965". Annexed thereto is an order dated 09.04.2009 which 7 O.A.No.2714/2017 classifies posts as Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D, in accordance with the scale of pay attached to the post.
4. He submits that pursuant to the revision of pay scales on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the classification of the post the applicants were holding i.e. Assistant has been classified as Group B post and in accordance with the instructions and relevant rules, Group B post carries an all India liability and seniority has also to be drawn accordingly. He submits that the issue is to be decided in accordance with the circular of Sports Authority of India (SAI) which has been annexed as Annexure A-3, para 2.2 read with para 2.6, for better understanding, it would be worthwhile to quote verbatim the said two paragraphs :
2.2 The LDCs would be eligible for promotion to the post of UDC and then as Assistant as per the provisions of Recruitment Rules and their seniority will be maintained on Regional/Sub-Centre or Head Office basis. The personnel would also be eligible for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and further, the seniority for which will be maintained on All India basis.
2.6 Seniority of Candidates : On selection, the seniority of the candidates will be maintained on Regional of Head Office basis in the particular region while in Group „C‟ grade.
However, on promotion in Group „B‟ post (Office Superintendent or Jr. Accounts Officer), his/her seniority will be maintained on all India basis in combined seniority with the persons of other Centres."
8O.A.No.2714/2017
5. He submits that a combined reading of these two paragraphs leaves no scope for any ambiguity that seniority at Regional/Sub Centre or Head Office basis is to be maintained only with respect to the post of LDC and UDC; thereafter, on Assistant onwards, the seniority shall be maintained on all India basis. According to him para 2.6 removes even the smallest doubts in the matter categorically stating that seniority will be maintained on all India basis for Group B posts and it is not in dispute that the post which the applicants are holding is Assistant which is a group B post. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the minutes of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Ministry of Sports, Government of India (Annexure R-4).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants in rejoinder argues that para 2.6 is w.r.t. Group B post as qualified that of Office Superintendent and Jr. Accounts Officer and none else. He further argues that there is not a single document on record to indicate that the respondents had taken a decision and thereafter passed an appropriate order that seniority of Assistants henceforth shall be maintained on all India basis. As regards the meeting as mentioned in Annexure A4, he points out that pursuant to this meeting, no decision has been taken to justify the 9 O.A.No.2714/2017 action of the respondents. They arbitrarily revised the seniority list from Regional/Sub Centre or Head Office basis to all India basis. Learned counsel for the applicants concluded the arguments by submitting that the respondents had invited objections/representations to the impugned seniority list which is a provisional one. However, without taking the objections/representations into consideration for finalisation of the said seniority list, they have given effect to the provisional seniority list itself by way of effecting promotions.
7. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the applicants are Assistants, who are eligible to be promoted to the post of Office Superintendent (OS). For the sake of brevity, it is imperative to state that the issue involved in the present OA is twofold. Firstly, the respondents have proceeded with the provisional seniority list of Assistants on All India basis and given effect to promotions, without addressing the representations and objections invited thereto (Annexure-A/2). Secondly, applicants state that the seniority list issued by the respondents is against the 10 O.A.No.2714/2017 provisions of the circular/advertisement as mentioned in Sub-Clause 2.2 and 2.6 of Clause 2.0 (Annexure-A/3).
9. With respect to the first point, there is no obstacle before the respondents to effect promotion on the basis of provisional list in the interest of administrative exigency and in the present facts, the same has been prepared and issued by the orders of the Tribunal itself. Moreover, in the counter reply, respondents themselves have explained that the word „provisional‟ in the seniority list has been used inadvertently. We are convinced by the reasons explained in the counter reply, for operating the provisional seniority list. Relevant paras of the counter reply explaining the aforesaid position are reproduced herein below : "It is submitted that the Applicant No.1 to 4
in the present Original Application earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging provisional seniority list of LDCs dated 22.11.1991 and promotion to the post of UDCs on the basis of this list vide promotion Order dated 12.09.1991 vide OA Nos 966/1997,967/1997, 961/1997 and 964/1997. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 18.07.2000 dismissed the said Original Applications vide common Order on the ground of limitation as well as on merit and did not find any substance to interfere the promotion Order dated 12.09.1991. The copies of the Hon'ble Tribunal Order dated 18.07.2000 and Promotion Order dated 12.09.1991 are annexed as Annexure-R/2 and Annexure-R/3 respectively.
It is also submitted that the affected /aggrieved LDCs i.e. S/Sh. R.K. Purthi, HK. 11 O.A.No.2714/2017 Jodshi, Arun Sharma and Indu Arora represented to the Competent Authority and their Grievances were examined and disposed off by giving them seniority over 06 NIS LDCs by issuing revised Seniority List of LDCs on 08.04.2015 with the approval of the then Chairman, Governing Body, SAI. But the seniority was challenged on the basis of Order dated 18.07.2000 passed in OA Nos 961,963 to 967 of 1997 by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (PB) by way of filing Contempt Petition No. 366/2015 in OA Nos 961, 963 to 967 of 1997 by Sh. A.K. Verma, Smt. Praveen Malik, Smt. Raj Gautam, Smt. Asha Tomar, Smt. Madhu Chhabra, Smt. Geeta Sareen. While hearing the Contempt Petition No. 366/2015 on 26.08.2015, The Hon'ble Tribunal directed to the Director General, Sports Authority of India to show cause as to why he should not be directed to remain present before this Tribunal to face the Contempt charges. It is made clear that if the aforementioned seniority list is recalled before the next date of hearing, he will not be required to show cause. List on 28.09.2015.
It is also submitted that in compliance of Order of Hon'ble Tribunal dated 26.08.2015. the Director General, Sports Authority of India filed an Affidavit that the impugned Seniority List dated 08.04.2015 has been recalled and stood withdrawn with immediate effect vide Order dated 22.09.2015.
The said Contempt Petition No. 366/2015 was listed on 28.09.2015 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and in view of the stand taken by the Director General, Sports Authority of India, the Contempt Petition was disposed off and passed theOrder on 28.09.2015 to stand discharged the Notice issued to the Respondents.
As per the directions of Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Order dated 18.07.2000 and 28.09.2015, the Seniority List of Assistants(LDCS who were promoted as 12 O.A.No.2714/2017 UDC as well as Assistant on the basis of Seniority list dated 22.11.1991 on attaining finality) issued on 22.03.2017 as it was necessarily required before giving promotion to the senior most Assistants to the post of OS vide Office Order dated 17.05.2017. The word provisional written inadvertently on this list since it has been prepared on the basis of seniority list issued on 22.11.1991 which is at present operational and final as per the directions/orders of Hon'ble Tribunal as referred above."
10. So far as the second point is concerned, it is seen that the applicants were initially appointed as LDC in the year 1984. They were further promoted to the post of UDC and thereafter as Assistants in the years 2013 and 2014. The provisional seniority list has been issued by the respondents in the year 2017. The applicants are claiming seniority on the basis of Clause incorporated in an Advertisement pertaining to the year 2011 to the post of LDC/Junior Accountant, while they are holding the post of Assistant and are the aspirants for the post of OS. Since 2013-2014, the years in which the applicants were promoted as Assistant until 2017, when the impugned seniority list was issued, the Recruitment Rules to various posts of Ministerial Cadres have been in existence, however, the applicants have chosen to sleep over their rights all these 3-4 years after they were promoted as Assistant.
13O.A.No.2714/2017
11. It is also worthwhile to mention here that either of the parties has chosen not to place the Recruitment Rules, which were essential to determine their claim, on record. The applicants have rather placed reliance on absolutely extraneous material which is nowhere supporting their claim. Although the applicants are Assistants eligible to be promoted to the post of OS, however, they have relied upon an advertisement with respect to the post of LDC/Junior Accountant. In this regard, it is well settled law that the Circulars/Advertisements cannot take away the effect of Statutory Rules/Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the claim of the applicants and the OA, being bereft of merit, is dismissed, accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/rk/