Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Neeraj Ganjoo vs M/O Defence on 14 February, 2024
1 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00322/2021
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
Shri Neeraj Ganjoo,
S/o Shri J.L.Ganjoo,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as Principal Scientific Officer (NFSG),
Office of RDAQA (OH),
OADG (South Zone),
DGAQA, Ministry of Defence,
C/o HAL Bangalore Complex,
Bangalore -560017. ...Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
DHQ PO New Delhi -110011.
2. The Director General (AQA),
Directorate General of Aeronautical,
Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence,
H Block, New Delhi 1100011.
2 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. The Additional Director General (SZ),
Aeronautical Quality Assurance,
DGAQA, Ministry of Defence,
Bangalore Complex, Vimanapura Post,
C/o HAL, Bangalore -560017.
4. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi -110011.
5. Shri Dashpati Upadhyay,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as PScO,
SSQAG, DGAQA, C/o ASL Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad -500058.
6. Shri Achyut Kumar Chowdhury,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as PScO,
Office of RDAQA, DGAQA,
6, Esplanade East,
Kolkata -700069.
7. Shri K.Periyasamy,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as PScO,
Office of RDAQA, DGAQA,
HAL Post, Hyderabad -500042.
8. Shri Yanamandra Venu Madhava Rao,
Aged about 54 years,
Working as PScO, SSQAG, DGAQA,
C/o ASL Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad -500058.
3 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Shri S.K.Sarangi,
Aged about 59 years,
Retired Principal Scientific Officer,
Flat No.108, Royal Fountain Square,
RFS Layout, Kaggadasapura,
Bengaluru -560093.
10.Shri Y.K.Ahlawat,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as PScO,
Office of ORDAQA (MRO&RWRDC),
P.B.No.1782, Vimanapura Post,
HAL, Bangalore-560017.
11.Shri Hari Om,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as PScO,
Dett. AQA Wing (Armt),
DGAQA, Muradnagar,
U.P.-201206.
12.Shri Yogeshkumar V.Langde,
Aged about 55 years,
Working as PScO,
MSQAA, DGAQA,
C/o DRDL, Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad-500058.
13.Shri Jarnail Singh,
Aged about 56 years,
Working as PScO,
Office of ORDAQA (Helicopter),
PB No.1782, Vimanapura Post,
C/o HAL, Bangalore-560017.
4 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
14.Shri Ramakrishna Sarma Tangirala,
Aged about 58 years,
Working as PScO,
ORDAQA (LCA-TD), DGAQA,
Ministry of Defence, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560037.
15.Shri K.Chakravarthy,
Aged about 57 years,
Working as PScO,
Office of MSQAA, DGAQA,
C/o DRDL, Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad -500058. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri S.Sugumaran for Respondents No.1to4)
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal 5 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned letter bearing F No.2927/SSO-I/DGAQA/Adm.1 dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure A1) passed by 2nd Respondent and Letter bearing F.NO.2927/SSO-I/DGAQA/Admn-1 dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure A11) passed by 2nd Respondent.
(c) Issue a consequential direction to issue a revised seniority list duly placing the applicant above the private respondents in the interest of justice and equity.
(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of this case including an order as to the costs of this application."
2. The facts in brief as stated by the applicant are that he joined the service of the respondents as Senior Scientific Officer II ('SSO-II' for short) on 05.11.2001. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Scientific Officer- I ('SSO-I' for short) and further promoted as Principal Scientific Officer, in which post he is presently working. The applicant was selected as SSO-II by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence. The private respondents No.5 and 6 were selected as SSO-II (Electrical) and private respondents No.7 to 15 were selected as SSO-II (Mechanical) by UPSC in the Directorate General of 6 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Aeronautical Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence. The applicant was appointed against the vacancy year 1999 whereas the private respondents were appointed against the vacancy year 2000. However, the appointment orders were issued to the private respondents much earlier and the appointment order of the applicant was issued later. As such the applicant joined service on 05.11.2001 whereas the private respondents have joined earlier. Pursuant to the publication of the seniority roll of SSO-II vide No.2927/SSO-I/DGAQA/ADMN.I dated 31.03.2004, the applicant submitted his representation dated 29.04.2004. The same was responded to, impliedly rejecting the prayer for altering his seniority. Yet another seniority list was circulated by the 2nd Respondent on 04.05.2006 (SSO-II) and in this list also the name of the applicant was found at Sl.No.36 and the names of the private respondents were above the name of the applicant. However, the applicant has not proceeded further in view of the reply already furnished to him relating to the seniority list published on 31.03.2004. On 04.02.2020, the 2nd Respondent has issued seniority list of SSO-I [including PSCO (functional/NFSG)] as on 31.01.2020 subject to the outcome of several pending cases in various Courts/Tribunals. In this seniority list the name of the applicant has been shown at Sl.No.36 7 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH below the private respondents. The representation submitted by the applicant for review of the seniority list has been rejected. Hence this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the applicant and two others were appointed as SSO-II (Electronics) against the 1999 vacancies, whereas the private respondents were appointed to the post of SSO-II (Mechanical) as against the vacancies of the year 2000. It appears the panels have been sent by the UPSC on different dates. The applicant having been appointed against 1999 vacancies should get seniority above the private respondents who were all appointed against 2000 vacancies. The representation submitted by the applicant for review has been rejected on the ground that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 19.11.2019 in the case of K.Megahachndra Singh and others vs. Ningam Siro and others (Civil Appeal No.8833-8835 of 2019) will apply prospectively. Hence the rejection of the representation submitted by the applicant is arbitrary and unsustainable. The applicant having been selected against the vacancy year 1999 ought to have been placed above the private respondents in the impugned seniority list. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.
8 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. Learned Counsel Shri S.Sugumaran appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the requirement of the Defence Aeronautical Quality Assurance Service (DAQAS), direct recruitment in the grade of SSO-II was made in different disciplines i.e., Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics, Metallurgy, Chemical etc and on the basis of DAQAS Service Rules of 1979, recruitment to the post has been made through UPSC on the basis of interview. The discipline-wise panels in a particular year were placed one below another in the chronological order of date of issue of these panels by the Commission which is in consonance with the instructions laid down in DoP&T in its OM dated 03.07.1986 i.e., the persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. The applicant was nominated for the post of SSO-II in DAQAS by the UPSC against the Electronics discipline vide letter dated 06.06.2001 and he joined the service in DAQAS on 05.11.2001. The private respondents were nominated for the post of SSO-II by the UPSC against the Electrical and Mechanical disciplines vide letter dated 08.05.2001 and 01.06.2001 respectively. These private respondents joined the service of SSO-II from 11.10.2001 to 17.02.2003. The representation submitted by the applicant pursuant to the seniority list issued vide letter dated 9 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 31.03.2004 was considered and rejected. Seniority is determined according to the availability of select panel made available by UPSC and not according to the projection of vacancies. Yet another seniority list issued on 04.05.2006 was not objected by the applicant, wherein the applicant was placed below the private respondents. No challenge was made to the said seniority list. The applicant's seniority stands well settled in terms of the guidelines contained in DoP&T OM dated 03.07.1986. Accordingly justifying the action of the respondents, learned Counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The factual aspects are not in dispute. The applicant has sought for revision of seniority roll of SSO-I in DGAQA Organisation published on 04.02.2020, wherein he has been placed below the private respondents. The main ground of challenge is that the applicant was appointed for the vacancies of 1999, wherein private respondents were appointed for the vacancies arising in the year 2000, as such the seniority of an employee has to be fixed in the year of the vacancy 10 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH notified for filling up the post by UPSC and not as per the panels made available by the UPSC.
7. As could be seen from the material on record, the representation dated 29.04.2004 submitted by the applicant has been rejected relating to seniority roll of SSO-II dated 31.03.2004, wherein the applicant was placed at Sl.No.60 below the private respondents. Yet in another seniority list of SSO-II circulated by the 2nd Respondent on 04.05.2006, again the applicant was placed below the private respondents, but the same has remained unchallenged by the applicant. The only reason now assigned by the applicant is that he could not proceed against the seniority list dated 04.05.2006 in view of the reply already furnished to him relating to the seniority list dated 31.03.2004. Having accepted the seniority list dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure A5), the applicant is estopped from challenging the seniority list of SSO-I dated 04.02.2020 that too relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. N.R.Parmar and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7514-7515 of 2005 (DD: 27.11.2012), which was rendered in the context of inter-se seniority between direct recruitees and promotees.
11 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
8. In our considered view, the cases of N.R.Parmar and K.Meghachndra Singh would be applicable only in cases of inter se seniority involved between the direct recruits and promotes. In the present case, there is no such dispute. The controversy involved in the present case is, with respect to the inter se seniority between the direct recruits i.e., the applicant and the private respondents. Hence the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.R.Parmar's case and in K.Meghachndra Singh's case, may not be applicable. On the other hand, the instructions laid down in DoP&T OM dated 03.07.1986 (Annexure R2) regarding relative seniority of all direct recruits as contemplated at Para-2.1 would be directly applicable.
9. The representations submitted by the applicant seeking for review of the seniority list dated 04.02.2020 has been rejected on the ground that the seniority of officers was finalised in the previous seniority rolls and hence were settled issue even before the issue of seniority roll dated 04.02.2020. It is well settled that seniority list which was holding the field from 2004 cannot be disturbed at this length of time, more particularly when the seniority list of 04.05.2006 was accepted by the applicant without any demur.
12 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
10. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.S.Vankani & others vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1714, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"25. Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one's service career. Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one's chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work. It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. Public 13 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604. In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the appellants in G.P. Doval's case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case, G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case."
11. The settled legal position that seniority list once settled cannot be unsettled after a lapse of long time has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments. The claim of the applicant at this length of time to review the seniority list of SSO-I dated 04.02.2020, accepting the seniority list of SSO-II dated 04.05.2006 amounts to unsettling the settled issues causing chaos in general which is impermissible in law. On this ground alone, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
14 OA 322/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
12. For the reasons aforesaid, OA lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.