Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs Registrar, Barkatullah University & ... on 28 June, 2012
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ Petition No.434/2004
The Senior Administrative Officer, Bhopal and others................Petitioners
Versus
K. G. Sudarsanan and another................................................Respondents
For the petitioners : Shri S. A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate.
For respondent : Shri D. K. Dixit, Advocate.
no.1
For respondent : None, though served.
no.2
******
Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH
HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV
******
ORDER
(28.6.2012) The following order of the Court was passed by Ajit Singh, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2003, Annexure P1, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (in short, "the Tribunal") whereby it has allowed the Original Application No.15/2000 filed by respondent no.1 directing the petitioners to fix his seniority on the post of senior clerk from 24.11.1982.
2. The petitioners are officers of the Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (in short, "the CIAE"). Respondent no.1 was initially posted as junior clerk in the Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute (in short, "the CSWRI"). It is not in dispute that both CIAE and CSWRI are organizations working under the control of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institute (in short, "the ICAR").
3. The CIAE was established at Bhopal in the year 1976 for conducting research work. At that time there was only a skeleton staff in the CIAE and with the passage of time posts of senior clerk fell vacant. Since none of the junior clerks working in the CIAE was eligible for 2 promotion to the post of senior clerk, a decision was taken to call the staff from the ICAR on deputation.
4. Respondent no.1 was posted as junior clerk in the CSWRI, Avika Nagar (Rajasthan). He was also eligible for recruitment to the post of senior clerk. The petitioners, therefore, by order dated 3.5.1982 approved the deputation of respondent no.1 and thereafter by another order dated 28.6.1982 appointed him to the post of senior clerk with effect from 19.6.1982.
5. While respondent no.1 was on deputation in the CIAE, he passed the departmental competitive examination held on 14th and 15th September 1982 by his parent department i.e. CSWRI. In the result CSWRI, by order dated 2.12.1982 promoted him to the post of senior clerk with effect from 24.11.1982.
6. Later, it appears that respondent no.1 wanted to continue in the CIAE and even made a request in this regard. Likewise, even the petitioners felt that they needed the services of respondent no.1 permanently because of his experience and efficiency. This is also reflected from the remark made by petitioner no.1 Annexure R1, to the effect that the services of respondent no.1 in the CIAE are indispensable. Petitioner no.1 then by order dated 27.8.1983 appointed respondent no.1 on the post of senior clerk at the CIAE, Bhopal, but fixed his seniority in the grade of senior clerk from that date. Respondent no.1, aggrieved with the fixation of his seniority from 27.8.1983, made various representations and requested for his repatriation.
7. It is not in dispute that the ICAR by order dated 28.5.1990 on the letter of petitioners also approved the permanent absorption of respondent no.1 on the post of senior clerk in the CIAE, Bhopal, from 27.8.1983. And respondent no.1 continued to pursue his claim for seniority in the CIAE from 24.11.1982 on which date he was promoted to the post of senior clerk in the CSWRI (parent department). Initially, there was some reluctance but by order dated 27.11.1998 the petitioners granted seniority to him with effect from 24.11.1982. However, after 3 about nine months by another order dated 10.8.1999 the petitioners cancelled the order dated 27.11.1998. Being left with no option, respondent no.1 filed Original Application No.15/2000 before the Tribunal wherein he challenged the order dated 10.8.1999. The Tribunal, by order dated 14.11.2003 allowed the claim of respondent no.1 and directed the petitioners to fix his seniority from 24.11.1982. While so directing, the Tribunal has referred to the circular dated 29.5.1986 of the Department of Personnel and Training and also the decision of the Supreme Court in S. I. Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, Delhi AIR 2000 SC 594. As per the direction given by the Tribunal, respondent no.1 is to be placed above respondent no.2 in the seniority list. Interestingly, respondent no.2 has not challenged the order of the Tribunal but the petitioners feeling aggrieved have filed the present petition for its quashing.
8. The main submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that the Tribunal committed an illegality in directing the petitioners to fix the seniority of respondent no.1 from 24.11.1982 because he was absorbed in the CIAE from 27.8.1983. The learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, defended the order passed by the Tribunal.
9. The above referred circular dated 29.5.1986, which is applicable in the present case, reads as under:
"In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for "Transfer on deputation/ Transfer") his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has, however, been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority from -
-the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or
-the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department.
-whichever is later." (The words "whichever is later" have now been deleted).
10. The Supreme Court in the case of S. I. Rooplal (supra) considered the circular dated 29.5.1986 at length and held that insofar as it provides 4 exclusion of service rendered by an absorbed deputationist in equivalent cadre in the parent department while fixing his seniority in the transferred department offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court has also held that on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre in the transferred post, there could be no reason why the absorbed deputationist should not be permitted to count his service in the parent department. After the decision of the Supreme Court the words "whichever is later" in the circular dated 29.5.1986 were deleted.
11. It is clear from the reading of circular that in case of a person who has been holding already (on the date of absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority on the condition that he will be given seniority either from the date he has been holding the post on deputation, or, the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department. As already seen above, respondent no.1 was on deputation in the CIAE from 19.6.1982 and was holding the post of senior clerk. His parent department CSWRI promoted him to the same/equivalent post of senior clerk with effect from 24.11.1982 by order dated 2.12.1982. The services of respondent no.1 were absorbed in the CIAE from 27.8.1983. He was thus admittedly holding the regular post of senior clerk in the CSWRI on the date when he was absorbed in the CIAE. Therefore, there could be no reason why respondent no.1 on being absorbed in an equivalent cadre should not be permitted to count the period of his service rendered in the parent department for the purposes of fixing seniority. For these reasons, we find no illegality in the order of Tribunal directing the petitioners to fix the seniority of respondent no.1 from 24.11.1982 on which date he was promoted to the post of senior clerk in his parent department CSWRI.
12. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE JUDGE ps