Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Santosh Kumar vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2010
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 21 day of 10, 2010
Original Application No. 714 of 2007
Honble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J)
Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A)
1. Santosh Kumar, aged about 46 years, Son of late Sri R.P. Lal, presently posted as Head Clerk, Personnel Branch, D.L.W., Varanasi.
2. Gorakh Nath Sharma, aged about 48 years, Son of Sri T.N. Sharma, presently posted as Head Clerk, Personnel Branch, D.L.W., Varanasi.
. . .Applicants
By Adv : Sri A. Srivastava.
V E R S U S
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway, through General Manager, D.L.W., Varanasi.
2. The General Manager, D.L.W., Varanasi.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, D.L.W., Varanasi.
4. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, HQ., D.L.W., Varanasi.
5. Senior Personnel Officer, D.L.W., Varanasi.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Sri A.K. Sinha.
O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) The applicants in this case have challenged the method adopted in preparation of the panel for the post of Office Superintendent on the ground that instead of adopting seniority as the criteria, merit has been considered whereby their names have been pushed down, consequent to which, they could not seek berth in their own personnel department, but has been posted to some other department.
2. To have the hang of the case, the applicants were functioning as Head Clerks. For promotion, many a method has been adopted one of them being through limited departmental competitive examination. It is also termed as Selection under Qualified Staff Quota, for example, for the post of Technician (Trade). In respect of this post, panel is prepared on the basis of seniority cum merit. (No classification as outstanding)
3. Earlier, 20% of the posts of OS Gr. II (5500 9000) and Personnel Inspector (6500 -10500 was filled up by Direct Recruitment. The Respondents had, vide Annexure A-3, order dated 17-06-2005, introduced limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post of OS Gr. II (5500 9000) and Personnel Inspector (6500 -10500) in lieu of Direct recruitment upto the afore said 20% of posts. The Salient features of the said LDCE include i. The examination should be held combined for all departments for a Zonal Railway by Railway Recruitment Boards catering to Zonal Rlys./Pus as nominated for conducting GDCE vide this Ministrys letter No. E(RRB) 2001/25/31 dated 8.8.2003. For this purpose the Zonal Railway/PU should club vacancies of all Deptts./units against this quota and forward applications of eligible employees to RRB concerned as per procedure already being followed by them for GDCE.
ii. ..
iii. .
iv. The selection shall be based entirely on merit with reference to marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and service records. Subject to usual relaxation for SC/ST staff those securing less than 60% in the aggregate will not be considered eligible for inclusion in the panel. Further, the service records of only those candidates who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the written examination shall be assessed.
v. Based on (iv) above the RRB will furnish the panel of successful candidates in order of merit, equal to the number of total vacancies intimated by the Zonal Railway/PU concerned. While it will be preferable to post the successful candidates in their respective Departments/Units, there is no bar to their being posted elsewhere if the number of successful candidates does not match the number of already assessed vacancies in the respective Deptt./Unit.
4. Initially the exams were conducted through the RRB but vide Annexure A-4 order dated 06-10-2006 the exams were to be conducted by Zonal Railways/PU
5. On 10-08-2005 16 vacancies (of which thirteen were for general category) in various departments of OS II as well as Personnel Inspector were notified. Vacancies in the personnel department were 3 in numbers . Annexure A-5 refers. Written examination for OS II was held on 29-11-2006 and panel prepared vide Annexure A-1 order dated 05-12-2006. Applicants names figure in serial Nos. 12 and 10. This panel has been prepared on the basis of merit only, and not on the basis of seniority. There being limited number of vacancies in Personnel Department, and three persons above the applicants in the panel being figuring in from personnel Department, the three vacancies in Personnel department had been filled up by posting those above the applicants and consequently, the applicants were to be sent outside Personnel department. Annexure A-2 order dated 09-03-2007 refers.
6. Challenge of the applicants: According to the applicants, the stipulations in the order dated 17-06-2005 are in variance with those stipulated in the statutory manual vide clause (i) and (j) of Para 219 of IREM. Had the panel been prepared on the basis of seniority, then, the applicants, being senior amongst the selected candidates from Personnel department, (vide Annexure A-7 seniority list) would have been placed accordingly in the panel, in which case, they would have been accommodated within the Personnel Department. Hence, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the panel and posting order at Annexure A-1 and A-2 and for a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh panel and posting order, arranging the persons selected seniority-wise.
7. Respondents have contested the O.A. First they have traced out the history of filling up 20 % of the posts by direct Recruitment through RRB. by referring to Para 11.1 of Annexure CA 1 Restructuring Order. Later, in order to motivate those in lower grades in various departments, who have the requisite qualifications as for OS Grade II, in lieu of direct recruitment from open market, it was decided to conduct a Limited Departmental competitive Examination, in lieu of the afore said Direct Recruitment, vide Annexure A-3 of the O.A. In that order, there is a specific mention vide Paragraph 3.II(v) thereof that panel of successful candidates will be in order of merit, equal to the number of total vacancies. Of course, there is no bar to their being posted elsewhere if the number of successful candidates does not match the number of already assessed vacancies in the respective department. As the panel was prepared on the basis of Annexure A-3 order on the basis of merit, some individuals from the Personnel Department being placed above the names of the applicants, the applicants were to be posted outside the personnel department. Thats why, the applicants have preferred an application for modification of the panel, so that they could be accommodated within the Personnel Department. Their request for recasting of the panel on the basis of seniority was however, turned down vide Annexure CA 4 order dated 27-09-2007.
8. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicants, annexing copies of some of the orders which figure in the original applications as well and some seniority list. Contentions raised in the Original Application have been reiterated therein.
9. Counsel for the applicant emphatically argued that the decision to prepare the panel is diagonally opposite to the statutory provisions contained in para 219(i) and (j) of the I.R.E.M. as per which, it is the seniority and not merit which is reckoned for preparation of such panel.
10. Counsel for the respondents argued that there is no merit in the O.A. According to them, the arrangement of panel on the basis of seniority is applicable to the case of filling up of the vacancies under normal promotion quota which is 80% of the vacancies whereas, in respect of limited competitive examination, it is based on merit and as such, there is absolutely no illegality in the preparation of panel on the basis of merit, vide Annexure A-1. Thus, when admittedly, above the applicants there are persons of the Personnel department and when the vacancies in Personnel Department were only three, such persons above the applicants were accommodated therein, whereby, the applicants were to be sent to other departments where vacancies were available. Thus, they have prayed for the dismissal of the O.A.
11. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The contention of the applicants counsel includes that in respect of Qualified staff quota, seniority is the criteria and outstanding has no relevance, vide Annexure 8 order dated 02-02-1998 and there is practically no difference between selection by LDCE method and Qualified Staff Quota method. As such, seniority is the criteria. Reliance has been placed on Annexure A-9. We are not in a position to accept this contention, for, instructions in respect of selection of OS II and Personnel Inspector are different from the one meant for Technician (Trade).
12. The next argument of the counsel for the applicant is that Para 219(i)(j) is specific that seniority is the criteria. Against the above, counsel for the respondents stated that 219 is in respect of promotion (under the 80% quota), while LDCE is in lieu of Direct Recruitment and as such, merit alone is the consideration. As such we have to see whether the case of selection by the LDCE falls under the provisions of Rule 219 IREM. In other words, whether Rule 219(i) and (j) is applicable to the preparation of panel for the post of OS II under the 20% quota through LDCE.
13. In the Railways, many a method of filling up of the post is prescribed. Apart from Direct Recruitment and promotion, which are normally available in various other Ministries, there is a method called General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and (LDCE) within the same seniority unit (or. within the feeder grade), LDCE amongst many seniority units subject to fulfillment of the qualifications prescribed. In respect of certain methods, selection is made on the basis of performance in the written examination, professional ability, personality, record of service and seniority. In some other cases, question of seniority does not arise.
14. A perusal of the provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol I goes to show that LDCE is prescribed for the following posts:-
(a) Station Master
(b) Station Master in the grade of 5500 9000 (both LDCE and D.R)
(c) T.A.
(d) Commercial Superintendents (both LDCE and D.R)
(e) Commercial Apprentices
(f) Permanent Way Mistry
(g) Inspector of Works
(h) Ministerial and Non Ministerial Posts.
15. Rule 219 falls under Section B, Rules Governing the promotion of Group C Staff and this section applies to selection posts as well. 'Selection posts' are posts, grades or classes which have been declared as such by the Railway Board and to which promotion are made on the basis of a positive act of selection as per procedure in force for filling up the selection posts. Rule 215 specifically deals with Selection post and the same is as under:-
215. Selection Post a. Selection post shall be filled by a positive act of selection made by Selection Boards, from amongst the staff eligible for selection. .The selection for promotion to a selection post shall be made on the basis primarily of merits.
b. .
c. The Railway Board may adopt a procedure other than the one laid down in para 219 para 216 below while deciding individual cases of hardship.
d. Eligible staff upto three times the number of staff to be empanelled will be called for the selection. The staff employed in the immediate lower grade on fortuitous basis will not be eligible for consideration.
16. Rule 219 of the IREM states as under:-
219. Procedure to be adopted by Selection Board.
(a) When a selection post is to be filled, the authority empowered to constitute a Selection Board shall direct to the Board to assemble and make recommendation. It shall also nominate the Officer who shall act as the Chairman of the Board. The responsibility for selection will be of all members.
(b) $${An officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board must be authorised to set the question paper for written test, ~~~~~~{if such a test is} held as part of the selection for determining the professional ability.
Where possible another officer of the concerned Department who is also a member of the Selection Board should be nominated to evaluate the answer books, ensuring, however, that the answer books are invariably evaluated by a Member - Officer of the Department for which selection is held. The test should be conducted on a confidential system with Roll numbers.
[Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-95/PM1/14 Dated 03.03.1998 (RBE 52/98)]}
(c) i. ~~~~~~{In the written test held as part of the selection for promotion to the highest grade selection post in a category, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test. In the written test held as part of the selection for promotion to other lower grade selection posts, objective type questions should be set to the extent of about 25% (in the range of 20% to 30%) of the total marks for the written test.
ii. The provisions at (i) above will be applicable to selections in all departments except Accounts Department} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 &&{In the written test, if any, held as part of the selection for promotion to the highest grade selection post in a category, objective type questions should be set for about 50% (in the range of 45% to 55%) of the total marks for the written test. In the written test if any, held as part of the selection for promotion to other lower grade selection posts, objective type questions should be set to the extent of about 25% (in the range of 20% to 30%) of the total marks for the written test.
In order to offset the impact of random answering to objective type questions, one-fourth (1/4) mark should be deducted for each wrong answer.
The provisions at (i) and (ii) above will be applicable to selections in all departments except Accounts Department.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letter No. E(NG)I-83/PM1/65(PNMNFIR) dated 17.4.84, E(NG)I-2000/PM1/41 dated 24.11.2000 (RBE 202/2000) and 8-3-2002(RBE 32/2002)].}
(d) Moderation of result, by way of awarding grace marks to candidates shall not be resorted to without the authority of the Selection Board or the authority competent to accept the recommendation of Selection Board. No grace marks shall be allowed in individual cases.
[E(NG)I/67 PM 1-21, dated 25.2.1971 and E(NG)I/84-PM 1/6, dated 30.3.1985]
(e) Before the Selection Board assembled to make the selection, the papers connected with the proposed selection, the names of the candidates to be considered, the confidential reports, if any on such candidates and other relevant data concerning them shall be circulated for the information of the members of the Board as also the qualification prescribed for the particular post under consideration.
(f) @@{The Selection Board will examine the service record the confidential reports (if kept) of the staff eligible. A single evaluation sheet should be prepared to assess the candidates under the different headings of Personality, Address, Leadership etc., to be signed by all members of the Selection Board. Correction in the evaluation sheet, if any, should be attested by all the members of the Selection Board. The members nominated on a Selection Board should be advised clearly that there should not be any cuttings and overwriting in the proceedings of the Selection Board and serious objection of any cuttings and over-writing will be taken.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-79/PM1/320 dated 23.12.1979, E(NG)I-91/PM1/34 dated 01.05.1992 (RBE 71/92) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)]}
(g) Selection should be made primarily on the basis of overall merit, but for the guidance of Selection Board the factors to be taken into account and their relative weight are laid down below: -
[E(NG)I-69/PM 1-126 dt. 18.6.69] Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks
(i) Professional ability 50 30
(ii) Personality, Address, Leadership and Academic qualification 20
-
(iii) A record of service 15
-
(iv) Seniority 15
-
**{Note (i) Assessment under item personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qualifications should be made on the basis of the entries in the relevant columns in the Confidential Reports, wherever maintained.} Note (ii) The record of service should also take into consideration the performance of the employee in essential Training Schools/Institutes apart from the examining CRs and other relevant records.
[E(NG)I-72/PM 1/192 dt. 27.6.73] Note (iii) ~~~~~~{Candidates must obtain a minimum of 60% marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregate for being placed on the panel. In a few cases where both written and oral tests are held for adjudging the professional ability, the written test should not be of less than 35 marks and the candidates must secure 60% marks in written test for the purpose of being called in viva-voce test. Provided that 60% of the total of the marks prescribed for written examination and for seniority will also be the basis for calling candidates for viva-voce test instead of 60% of the marks for the written examination only; marks for seniority being awarded on notional basis. However, it should be specifically made clear to them that they are being called for interview based on the marks for seniority awarded on notional basis and that empanelment will be subject to their securing 60% marks in the professional ability (written test and viva voce test) and 60% in the aggregate.} Candidates must obtain a minimum of 30 marks in professional ability and 60% marks of the aggregates for being placed on the panel. Where both written and oral tests are held for adjudging the professional ability, the written test should not be of less than 35 marks and the candidates must secure 60% marks in written test for the purpose of being called in viva-voce test. %%{****}. Provided that 60% of the total marks prescribed for written examination and for seniority will also be the basis for calling candidates for viva-voce test instead of 60% of the marks for the written examination ~~{Only; marks for seniority being awarded on notional basis. However, it should be spherically {specially} made clear to them that they are being called for interview based on the marks for seniority awarded on notional basis and that empanelment will be subject to their securing 60% marks in the professional ability (written test and viva voce test) and 60% in the aggregate.} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 [Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 04.03.1998 (RBE 53/98) and No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 17.06.1998 (RBE 133/98)] [Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-92/PM4/1 dated 31.03.1992 (RBE 51/92) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99)] ~~{Note (iv) The proviso in the Note (iii) above will not be applicable in respect of the ex-cadre posts where the employee retains his lien in the parent cadre and seeks advancement therein.
[Authority : Ministry of Railway's letters No. E(NG)I-83/PM1/65 (PNM-NFIR) dated 28.01.1988 (RBE 21/1988) and E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/1999)]} ^^^ {Note (v) in the case of selection for promotion as Motorman, substitute the following for the existing heading 'Personality, address, leadership and academic/technical qualifications' in the table below para 219 (g):-
Max. Marks Qualifying Marks Aptitude Test 20 Nil Minimum cut-off as may be decided by RDSO [Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003)] Amended vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM1/31 dated 29.03.2005 (RBE 57/2005).
(h) The importance of an adequate standard of professional ability and capacity to do the job must be kept in mind and a candidates who does not secure 60% marks in professional ability shall not be placed on the panel even if on the total marks secured, he qualifies for a place. Good work and a sense of public duty among the consciousness staff should be recognised by awarding mere marks both for record of service and professional ability
(i) The names of selected candidates should be arranged in order of seniority but those securing a total of ++{80% or more marks} will be classed as outstanding and placed in the panel appropriately in order of their seniority allowing them to supersede not more than 50% of total field of eligibility. [E(NG)I/76 PM I-142, dated 25.7.1979 and 30.10.1979]
(j) For general posts i.e., those outside the normal channel of promotion for which candidates are called from different categories whether in the same department or from different department, the selection procedure should be as under -
i. ### ACS 152 {All eligible staff irrespective of the department in which they may be working who satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility and volunteer for the post should be subjected to a selection which should consist of a written test and in a few cases viva-voce test also as indicated in sub-para (a) of para 215. The various factors of selection and their relative weight will be as indicated below :-} All eligible staff irrespective of the department in which they may be working who satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility and volunteer for the post should be subjected to a selection which should consist of both written and viva-voce tests. %%{The various factors of selection and their relative weight will be as indicated below:
Maximum marks Qualifying marks (1) ~~~~~~Professional ability 50 30 Substituted vide ACS No. 150 (1) Professional ability consisting of
(a) written test; and 35 21 30/50
(b) Viva-voce test.15 (3)
Personality, address, leadership, academic/technical qualifications.
30 (4)Record of service.
20Note: (i) The assessment under heading (2) and (3) above will be governed by the provisions contained in Notes (i) and (ii) below para 219 (g).}
(ii) ^^^{In the case of selection for promotion to the post of. Diesel/Elect. Assfts. and ASMs, the heading (2) above shall be bifurcated as under:-
Max. Marks Qualifying Marks
(i) Academic/technical qualifications 10 Nil
(ii) Aptitude Test 20 Nil Minimum cut-off as may be decided by RDSO.
[Authority : Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003)] Corrigendum vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM 1/31 dated 9.9.2003 (RBE 158/2003) ACS No. 153 Amended vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM1/31 dated 29.03.2005 (RBE 57/2005).
ii. ~~~~~~{in a few cases where both written test and viva-voce test are held to assess the professional ability of the candidates, all those who secure not less than 60% marks in the written test should be called for viva-voce test.} Substituted vide ACS No. 150 The Selection Board should call for viva-voce test all candidates who secure not less than 60% marks in the written test%%{; and iii. The final panel should be drawn up in order of seniority from amongst those who secure a minimum of 60% marks in the professional ability and 60% marks in the aggregate, provided that those securing a total of ++{80% or more marks} will be classed as outstanding and placed at the top of the panel in order of seniority [Authority: Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-90/PM1/11 dated 16.11.1998 (RBE 263/98)]}
(k) The list will be put up to the competent authority for approval. Where the competent authority does not accept the recommendations of a Selection Board, the case could be referred to the General Manager, who may constitute a fresh Selection Board at a higher level, or issue such other orders, as he considers appropriate.
(l) After the competent authority has accepted the recommendations of the Selection Board, the names of candidates selected will be notified to the candidates. A panel once approved should normally not be cancelled or amended. If after the formation and announcement of the panel with the approval of the competent authority, it is found subsequently, that there were procedural irregularities or other defects and it is considered necessary to cancel or amend such a panel, this should be done after obtaining the approval of the authority next higher than the one that approved the panel.
[E(NG)I-67 PM 1-47 dt. 5.2.1969]
(m) SELECTION OF PERSONS ON DEPUTATION ABROAD. The panel should be finalised without waiting for the employees who are on deputation abroad. On return of the employee from abroad, if it is found that any one junior to him has been promoted on the basis of a selection in which he was not called because of his being abroad, he may be considered in the next selection and if selected, his seniority may be adjusted vis-`-vis his juniors. In case such an employee is declared outstanding in the next selection, he should be interpolated in the previous panel in accordance with the seniority and gradation in the subsequent selection.
[E(NG)I/77/PM 1-269 dt. 3.5.1980] $$ Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 40 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-95/PM1/14 dated 3.3.1998 (RBE 52/98)].
** Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 46 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-97/PM1/27 Dated 17.06.1998 (RBE 133/98).
%% As per Advance Correction Slip No. 66 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-90/PM1/11 dated 16.11.1998 (RBE 263/98).
@@ Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 83 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99).
~~ Inserted Advance Correction Slip No. 84 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-99/PM1/15 dated 26.07.1999 (RBE 149/99).
++ substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 111 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2000/PM1/30 Dated 12.10.2000 (RBE 174/2000).
&& Substituted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 130 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2000/PM1/41 dated 8-3-2002 (RBE 32/2002).
^^^Inserted vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM 1/31 dated 22.08.2003 (RBE 144/2003) ~~~~~~ Substituted/inserted/deleted vide Advance Correction Slip No. 130 issued under Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2000/PM1/41 dated 7.8.2003 (RBE 137/2003) ### Advance Correction Slip No 152 issued vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2000/PM1/41 dated 27.08.2003 (RBE 151/2003).
ACS No 153 ----- Corrigendum vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2002/PM 1/31 dated 9.9.2003 (RBE 158/2003) e. The above rule is the latest rule available in the internet and this talks of seniority as the criteria for preparation of panel. However, Order dated 17th June, 2005 Annexure A-3 specifically stipulates that panel of successful candidates shall be in order of merit equal to the number of total vacancies. This is a change from Rule 219. It is not exactly clear that this change has been effected invoking the provisions of Rule 215 ) of the IREM which provides The Railway Board may adopt a procedure other than the one laid down in para 219 para 216 below while deciding the individual case of hardship If the discretionary power has been invoked in the case of selection to the post of OS II through LDCE by the Railway Board, then the applicants have no case for, the same is well within the provisions of the Rules.
17. In fact, this is not the only post where selection is made through LDCE. As stated earlier, there are other posts also, where from different seniority units persons are permitted to take part in the LDCE subject to their having the requisite qualifications for the post. It is to be seen as to how the panel in such cases is prepared. Possibly, in those cases where marks are allotted for seniority, panel may be prepared on the basis of seniority and where no marks are allotted for seniority, panel may be on the basis of merits. If so, such a procedure is logical and appropriate.
18. As such, the respondents are to undertake an exercise as under:-
(a) In case merit system has been adopted in the exercise of their power under Rule 215 or any other rules, the applicants may be informed accordingly, in which event, the applicants have no case.
(b) The respondents may ascertain asto the procedure adopted in preparation of panel in respect of selection through LDCE for other posts, wherein, eligibility to appear in the examination is not confined to railway employees in the feeder grade or same seniority unit alone but extends to all those fulfilling the qualifications (for e.g. as in the case of Station Master, vide rule 122(ii) of the IREM where persons both in the operating as well as commercial departments are permitted to appear in the LDCE) and if in such case the panel is prepared on the basis of merit, the applicants be informed accordingly ;
19. In case the procedure in all other cases is different from the one that has been adopted in this case, then the respondents shall reconsider the same and have a uniform procedure. In that event, without disturbing the posting of other OS II in the Personnel Department, the applicants could be accommodated in the next available vacancies of OS II. Of course their seniority shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 320 of the IREM.
20. The application is disposed of with the above directions. The directions be carried out within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. No cost.
(Mrs. Manjulika Gautam) (Dr. K.B.S. Rajan)
Member(A) (Member (J)
/pc/
??
??
??
??
13