Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Karamjit Singh S/O Sh.Tirlochan Singh vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 26 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA. No. 1579/CH/2013
Reserved on: 20.03.2015
Pronounced on: 26.03.2015
CORAM:HONBLE MRS.RAJWANT SANDHU,MEMBER(A)
HONBLE DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL,MEMBER(J)
1. Karamjit Singh s/o Sh.Tirlochan Singh, Senior Assistant, Age 42 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
2. Sh.Vipin Vashisht S/o Sh.Ram Parkash, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
3. Surjit Kumar S/o Sh.Jhongi Ram, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
4. Sushma Verma w/o Sh.Raj Kumar, Senior Assistant, Age 48 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
5. Rajni Walia W/o Sh.Pardeep Sikand, Senior Assistant, Age 49 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
6. Abhinanda Sharma S/o Lt. Sh.P.C.Sharma, Senior Assistant, Age 48 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
7. Rajinder Kaur W/o Sh.Jagjit Singh, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
8. Joginder Singh S/o Sh.Narinder Singh, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
9. Bhram Pal S/o Sh.Gopi Chand, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
10. Kalawati W/o Sh.Raj Kumar, Senior Assistant, Age 47 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
11. Shashi Bala D/o Sh.Rameshwar Sharma, Senior Assistant, Age 49 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
12. Subash Chand S/o Sh.Hari Singh, Senior Assistant, Age 48 years Working in Office Of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
13. Sham Kumar Saroch son of Late Shri Ved Viyas, Senior Assistant, age 43 years working in office of Director Principal, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
.Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator.
3. Home Secretary-cum-Secretary Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Administration, Department of Personnel, Chandigarh.
4. The Director Principal, Government Hospital and Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
5. Sh. Lachhman Singh.
6. Sh. Sham Sunder Gupta.
7. Sh. Ram Karan Sharma.
8. Sh. Durga Dass.
9. Sh. Davinder Singh Saini.
10. Smt. Veena Moudgil.
11. Sh. Krishan.C.Joshi
Respondents NO. 5 to 11 are working as Senior Assistants in Office of Director Principal, Government Hospital and Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
.Respondents
Present: Sh. Rohit Seth, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, cousnsel for respdt. No.1.
Sh. K.K. Thakur, counsel for respdts. No. 2-4.
Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for respdts. No. 5-11.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
(i) Quash the action of respondent No. 4 in/for not taking a decision on the reference made to him by the respondent No. 3 on 08.02.2012 (Annexure A-1) in the case of applicant No. 1 and quash the action of the respondent No. 3/4 in sitting tight over the representations dated 19.03.2008, 26.06.2008 (Annexure A-7), 17.04.2009 (Annexure A-8), 29.10.2009 (Annexure A-9), 10.05.2010 (Annexure A-10), 03.06.2010 (Annexure A-11), 01.07.2010 (Annexure A-12), 22.02.2011 (Annexure A-13) and 11.3.2011 etc. submitted by the applicants till date as was conveyed vide letter dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No. 4 (Annexure A-2) and quash the action of the official respondents vide which they have given a wrong placement to the persons junior (private respondents) to the applicants who have been promoted by way of their absorption to the post of Senior Assistant in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against prevalent Recruitment Rules, without having framed any administrative instructions in this regard by applying different parameters on the applicants as well as similarly situated and then absorbing them illegally from retrospective date, causing grave hardship, heart burning and prejudice to the applicants and similarly situated.
(ii) Direct the Official Respondents, while quashing the defective proposed Seniority list of Senior Assistants as on 2005 (Annexure A-3) and as on 2009 (Annexure A-4), and to give the correct placement in the Seniority list to the applicants based upon their actual date of promotion as Senior Assistants and also to the Private Respondents accordingly before making further promotions to the post of Superintendent, along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
2. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicants joined the respondent department, GMCH, Sector 32 Chandigarh as Clerk on different dates and on rendering five years of service became eligible for promotion as Senior Assistant as per the notified Recruitment Rules, 2002 (Annexure A-18). twelve persons including the private respondents were given appointment in GMCH as Senior Assistants after coming on transfer/deputation basis pursuant to circular dated 15.09.1999 (Annexure A-6) vide appointment letters dated 24.11.1999. As on date, of these twelve persons, one has expired and four have been repatriated to their parent department and seven are working as Senior Assistant in GMCH. These persons were either Clerks or Senior Clerks in their parent department and they did not have 05 years experience as Junior Assistant at the relevant time/ were not holding analogous post nor were in identical pay scale in their parent department. There was no provision for transfer/deputation of employees who were not holding analogous post or in identical pay scale in their parent department in the post of Senior Assistant. There were also no instructions as to how such incumbents were to be granted seniority.
3. The Recruitment Rules of GMCH were notified on 06.06.2002 (Annexure A-18). Letter dated 28.03.2003 was issued to transferees/deputationists seeking option and declaration for absorption as Senior Assistant in GMCH by Joint Director (Admn) GMCH. The Department of Personnel, Chandigarh had advised vide note dated 03.06.2003 (A-19) that there was no provision in Recruitment Rules for appointment by transfer/deputation. However, absorption order dated 16.10.2004 was issued qua the transferees/deputationists who came to GMCH pursuant to Circular dated 15.09.1999 (Annexure A-6). The provisional seniority/gradation list of Senior Assistants was circulated vide letter No.33076, dated 01.11.2004 and the applicants filed objections to the same. The final gradation list of Senior Assistants was circulated vide letter/order No.07601, dated 04.03.2005 and the persons who had been absorbed as Senior Assistants were shown as senior to the applicants keeping in view date of joining of absorbees( Annexure A-3).
4. In the grounds for relief, it has interalia been stated as follows:-
(i) the respondents have not looked into the root of the issue which will lead to correct fixation of seniority to applicants i.e. the illegal absorption of transferees / deputationist and making that illegal absorption a mode of their recruitment/ promotion as Senior Assistant in GMCH in violation of prevalent Recruitment Rules/Draft Recruitment Rules and in absence of any administrative instructions.
(ii) the respondents are applying different parameters on the applicants who were firstly promoted as Junior Assistant then Senior Assistant despite being eligible to be promoted as such after rendering five years service as Clerk only as per the than prevalent rules and the vacancies of Senior Assistants were also there. The private respondents have been brought in on a higher post and in the higher scale illegally whereas their substantive post in their parent was of clerk/Senior Clerk/Junior Assistant and not Senior Assistant.
(iii) the O.A No.485-CH-2000 was filed by applicants other than applicants no. 10 and 12 was dismissed vide order dated 4.07.2002, against which one of the applicants therein namely Sh.Sham Kumar has filed a CWP No. 8560 of 2003 which is still pending adjudication, was against the taking on deputation of incumbents as Senior Assistants to GMCH and not against their being granted retrospective absorption against the rules for fixing their seniority. Hence there is no bar available to the respondents to correct seniority by delving into an issue which arose after the decision in earlier O.A and even filing of CWP. The basic issue in the present Original Application is with regard to fixation of seniority as Senior Assistants vis a vis parent cadre employees by assuming that respondents were rightly brought in persons on transfer/deputation basis.
(iv) Moreover in the reply filed by the GMCH Authority in the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1235/CH/1999 titled Durga Dass and others Versus Union of India and others stated that the private respondents are working as Senior Assistants on transfer basis as stop gap arrangement, who have requisite experience for the post of Senior Assistant as per amended Rules. Fact remains that none of the persons who were taken on deputation/transfer against Circular 15.09.1999 were having either 05 years of service as Junior Assistant or 18 years of service as Clerk according to the 1st circular i.e. 06.04.1999. No approval for decreasing the number of years in the experience was sought by the Competent Authority i.e. Department of Personnel.
(v) As per the reply dated 23.10.2009 of RTI application filed by one Sh.Sham Kumar colleague of applicants vide letter No.46678 it has been disclosed that the Draft Recruitment Rules dated 15.01.1998 (Relevant Extract is enclosed herewith as Annexure A-17) which were under consideration with the D.O.P., Chandigarh Administration were implemented in the GMCH prior to the Notification of GMCH Recruitment Rules on 06.06.2002 and in rules there was no provision of transfer/deputation of employees who were not holding analogous post or identical pay scale in their parent department. Hence under such circumstances the benefit of seniority could not be given to those who came on deputation/transfer basis based upon illegal circular dated 15.09.1999.
(vi) The GMCH Recruitment Rules were notified on dated 06.06.2002 (Relevant Extract is enclosed as Annexure A-18) and there is no provision of transfer/deputation of employees who were not holding analogous post or identical pay scale in their parent department what to talk about the retrospective absorption.
(vii) The comments of Department Of Personnel dated 03.06.2003 clause b (Annexure-A-19) to GMCH authorities stated that there is no provision in Recruitment Rules for appointment by transfer/deputation and as such absorption of the persons who joined pursuant to circular dated 15.09.1999 would be illegal, then on one hand these persons have been brought in illegally and thereafter are being given seniority over and above existing GMCH cadre employees.
(viii) Because at present two posts of Superintendent Grade-I are lying vacant with the Respondent Department, which has to be filled amongst Superintendent Grade-II of G.M.C.H., Chandigarh and when the same are filled then two posts of Superintendent Grade-II will fall vacant and these two posts of Superintendent Grade-II will have to be filled amongst the Senior Assistants of G.M.C.H. Chandigarh in the light of their placement in seniority list. At present, in addition to above, one post of Superintendent Grade-II is also lying vacant in the Mental Health Institution (MHI), Sector-32, Chandigarh under the Respondent No.4 and this post is also likely to be filled from amongst Senior Assistants of GMCH-32, Chandigarh. Thus for all intents and purposes if the Official Respondents are permitted to go ahead with the illegal/wrong provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants the Applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury and as such a direction is sought from this Tribunal to direct the Official Respondents to prepare the Seniority list of Senior Assistants afresh according to the draft Rules/Instructions of the Institution on the subject and till then the Respondents be restrained from proceeding further with the wrong/illegal Provisional Seniority list Annexure A-3 and A-4 respectively.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1-4, preliminary objection had been taken that after the issuance of absorption order dated 16.10.2004, the provisional gradation list of Senior Assistants was circulated vide Memo No. 33076 dated 01.11.2004 (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1) amongst the concerned officials including the applicant Sh. Karamjit Singh (Sr. No.22) for inviting objections, if any, for ascertaining the correctness of the factual information within a period of 15 days of the issue of this letter. The applicant raised his objections against the provisional seniority list. The objections received in this regard, including the objections of the applicant, were dealt at length and stand filed being devoid of merit. The officials appointed as Senior Assistant in the respondent GMCH were absorbed / confirmed vide office order dated 16.10.2004 in pursuance of a judgement passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No. 747-CH-2003 Mrs. Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and O.A.No. 246-CH-2004 Harjit Singh Vs. Union of India & Others. Thus, the instant Original Application is an attempt on the part of the applicants to challenge the findings and opinion expressed in those two decisions, which is not permissible.
6. It is further stated that the provisional seniority / gradation list was circulated vide Memo No. 15308 dated 02.04.2009 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure R-2) by inserting the condition of outcome of the CWP No. 8560 of 2003 filed in the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court by Sh. Sham Kumar Saroch. This petition has now been decided on 28.04.2014 with certain directions. The final seniority list of Senior Assistant is yet to be issued after 4.3.2005.
7. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents No. 5-11, preliminary objection was taken that similar OAs including OA No. 28/CH/2013 were filed by colleagues of the applicant before this Tribunal and have been dismissed. However, by way of the present OA, applicant again wants to re-open the matter. Hence, the present OA is not maintainable. This challenge is made in the guise of illegal absorption of transferees/deputationists which issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in as much as appointment of the answering respondents challenged at relevant point of time was upheld by the Tribunal. The answering respondents have been given seniority according to the rules and law declared by this Tribunal in the following cases:-
(i) OA No. 485/CH/2K Sham Kumar Saroch Vs. UOI & Ors.
(ii) RA No. 108/2002 - do - (iii) OA No. 1122/CH/99 Karamjit Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. (iv) RA No. 127/2002 - do (v) OA No. 1235/CH/99 Durga Dass Vs. UOI & Ors.
8. The employees from the autonomous bodies like Chandigarh Housing Board, PGI etc. were on deputation and were repatriated to their parent departments in 2002 and 2003 vide order dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure R-5/1) and order dated 25.3.2003 (Annexure R-5/2) but the applicants are still confusing the words deputation/transfer in respect of the employees taken on transfer basis from other departments of the Chandigarh Administration. The private respondents are working as Senior Assistants in the GMCH on transfer basis since 1999-2000 and the seniority list has been finalized long back in 2005. The provisional seniority list dated 02.04.2009 is for inclusion of the names of the Senior Assistants who were promoted after the issuance of the final seniority list that was issued in the year 2005. The applicants were appointed/promoted as Senior Assistants in 2002/2003. Thereafter, tentative seniority lists were issued against which applicants had raised objections which were considered and rejected and seniority lists were finalized in the year 2005. They cannot challenge seniority of a person appointed in 1999-2000. The applicants have intentionally not disclosed that they earlier filed OA No. 1122/CH/1999, which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated July 4, 2002 (Annexure R-5/5).
9. On merits, it has been stated that the issue of Rules of 1976 and the Model Draft Recruitment Rules has already been considered in the OAs referred in para 7 above. The Recruitment Rules of the GMCH were notified on 06.06.2002 and the applicants were promoted/appointed against the post of Senior Assistants in the year 2002-2003 as per these Rules. In connection with the recruitment/appointment of the answering respondents by way of transfer, the Tribunal had given its findings in the OAs referred above that no fault can be found with the method of recruitment and the eligibility criteria laid down by the respondent GMCH and it was well within its power to lay down such criteria. The final seniority list in respect of the Senior Assistants working in the year 2005 already stands finalized and issued by the respondent No. 4 on 04.03.2005. It is a settled principle of law that in the case of appointments made by transfer from other departments/offices, the persons so appointed are taken in the inter-se-seniority of the respective cadre in which they have been appointed from the date of their joining as such. An appointment on transfer basis is always considered as an appointment on permanent basis.
10. It is further stated that since the respondents were appointed in the GMCH on transfer basis; they are to be considered as employees of the said department from the date of their joining for all intents and purpose and they are also to be ranked amongst the Senior Assistants of the department from the date of appointment. The question of absorption of the respondents in the department does not arise as they are not working on deputation. If any willingness of the respondents for absorption in the GMCH has been sought by the authorities, it is immaterial and not legally tenable.
11. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Sh. Rohit Seth, learned counsel for the applicants stated that through this OA, they were challenging the retrospective absorption of the respondents No. 5-11 as Senior Assistants in GMCH w.e.f. the date when they joined in the GMCH as such and the consequential seniority that had been allowed to them placing them above the applicants in the present case. Learned counsel stated that at best, the absorption could have been effected from the date of issue of the order and there was no case for allowing retrospective absorption. He also stated that the respondents were not eligible to be appointed as Senior Assistants in GMCH in 1999 when they were appointed as such since they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed in this regard as per the draft rules of 1998 which have been finalized and notified later as the Recruitment Rules of 2002. The respondents were not holding analogous posts in their previous departments, they did not have the requisite experience at the level of Junior Assistant and nor were they in the analogous pay scale prior to joining the GMCH as Senior Assistants in the scale prescribed for this post. Learned counsel stated that when applications were invited for appointing persons in the GMCH, these were on the basis of deputation/transfer and the respondents joined in the GMCH. It was only in December, 2003 that options regarding absorption were asked for from the respondents; they gave their options in this regard and the absorption order was issued. This absorption order could not have retrospective effect. Moreover, the Department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration had opined that as per the Recruitment Rules of 2002, there was no provision for appointment on transfer/deputation. Hence, after the promulgation of these Rules, the applicants could not have been absorbed in the service of GMCH on the basis of their joining as Senior Assistants in 1999. Learned counsel also referred to the order of the Honble High Court dated 24.8.2014 in CWP No. 8560 of 2003 from which it was clear that the claim of the applicants in the present OA had to be decided on merits. In view of the directions of the Honble High Court, the entire matter regarding appointment of the respondents in GMCH in 1999 had to be looked at afresh as this was relevant to the date of absorption of the respondents in GMCH and the seniority position allowed to them.
12. Sh. K.K. Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No. 1-4 stated that the case of applicant No. 1 Sh. Karamjit Singh for promotion from back date had been rejected vide order dated 5.7.2011 and he had not impugned the same. Hence, his claim for seniority above the respondents was without merit. He also referred to the judgements in OA No. 1122/CH/99 titled Karamjit Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. and OA No. 1235/CH/99 titled Durga Dass Vs. UOI & Ors. and stated that the issue regarding appointment of the respondents as Senior Assistants had been settled through these orders and the matter could not be reopened as these decisions had never been impugned by the applicants.
13. Sh. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents 5-11 also referred to the judgements in OAs No. 1122 and 1235 and stated that the Bench had made several observations while deciding these OAs. It had been recorded in the order dated 4.7.2002 as follows:-
..In the absence of notified rules or draft rules, the competent authority could lay down eligibility criteria for making recruitment to the post in question. For this, reliance can be placed on 1967 SLR, 906 Sant Ram Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and another judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Lata Vs. UT Chandigarh, 1979(1) SLR Page 710. Thus, no fault can be found with the method of recruitment and the eligibility criteria laid down by the respondent GMCH and it was well within its power to lay down such criteria..that empoloyees who belong to autonomous bodies, like Chandigarh Housing Board, PGI etc. etc. were to be treated as deputationist and employees of other Departments of Chandigarh Administration like CTU, were to be treated as transferees. Thus, there remains no doubt in our mind regarding the appointment of the applicants that the same was by way of transfer and not on deputation. Furthermore, the respondent No. 4 in its reply has not disputed the status of the applicant, rather they have asserted that the applicants were selected by a duly constituted selection committee on the basis of eligibility criteria fixed by the Chandigarh Medical College & Hospital and that they never wanted to create any hinderance in their way. Thus, the applicants in OA No. 1235-CH-1999 cannot be said to deputationists, rather they were selected and appointed on the transfer basis. This is the prima facie finding of the Honble High Court in their order dated 13.2.2011.eligibility of the applicants and their locus standi to challenge the appointment of the applicants. In view of the facts discussed above, it is crystal clear that the applicants themselves were not eligible for promotion against the post of Senior Assistant. Once that is so, they cannot be allowed to challenge the selection and appointment of the incumbents who were appointed on transfer. We place reliance on the following judgements:-
(i) 1978(2) SLR, 396 (Delhi DB), S.S. Goyal & Others Vs. the Visitor University of Delhi.
(ii) JT 1998(8) SC, 210, Commissioner Assam State Housing & Another Vs. Purna Chandra Bora & Another.
(iii) JT 1999 (i) SC, 101, Utkal University etc. Versus Dr. Nzusingha Chand Sarangi & Others.
In view of the discussion above, OA No. 1122/CH/99, Karamjit Singh & Others versus Union of India & Others, is dismissed. The applicants in the present OA were parties in OA No. 1122/CH/99 and they were bound by the order dated 4.7.2002 passed in that case and they could not seek to reopen the settled issue. Since the respondents were treated as having been appointed on transfer to the GMCH, they were entitled to seniority as Sr. Assistants from the date when they joined the GMCH in 1999. The applicants were promoted as Senior Assistants much later in the years 2002/2003 and hence, they could not challenge the seniority list showing the respondents as senior to them. Learned counsel also cited Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal & Another, 1996(1) SCSLJ, page 225 to press that seniority is to be determined from the date of appointment. He also cited Swarn Lata Vs. UOI, 1979(1) SLR Page 711 wherein it had been held that it was not obligatory to make rules for recruitment before a service can be constituted or post created/filled State Government competent to exercise executive power. In the present case, although the recruitment rules were notified in 2002, but since the appointments had to be made in the GMCH to carry the work of the institution, the competent authority made the appointments of the respondents as Senior Assistants in 1999 and there was no irregularity in this regard as had also been held in order dated 4.7.2002 in OA No. 1122/CH/1999.
14. Learned counsel further stated that applicant No. 13 Sh. Sham Kumar Saroch had been impleaded later in pursuance of order dated 28.4.2014 in CWP No. 8560/2003 and his claim had also been rejected by the Health Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 29.11.2012 where the Health Secretary had observed as follows:-
In the light of the facts and legal position stated above, I am of the considered view that the representation of Sh. Sham Kumar Saroch, Senior Assistant, Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh for re-examination of the grievance and issue raised by him for determination of the seniority of the aforesaid officials from the date of submission of their option and further to put the feeding cadre employees who have completed five years service as a Clerk before taking the willingness of the Senior Assistant for absorption senior in the seniority and the Senior Assistants be merged/absorbed from the date of issuance of the absorption order merits no consideration. Hence the same is rejected. This order had not been impugned through the present OA. Learned counsel also referred to judgement dated 21.4.2008 in CWP No. 17118-CAT of 2004 whereby the order dated 28.7.2004 in OA No. 747/CH/2003 was upheld and Ms. Kamlesh Sharma who had also joined the GMCH in 1999 was treated as having been appointed by way of transfer. Learned counsel stated that the absorption order that was being challenged by the respondents had been issued by the Chandigarh Administration keeping in view the order dated 28.7.2004 in OA No. 747/CH/2003. Hence, the order of the CAT dated 28.7.2004 had gained finality and the absorption order issued on the basis of this order in respect of Ms. Kamlesh Sharma and other persons who are the respondents in the present OA was in order. Seniority had correctly been granted to the respondents treating them as having joined on transfer against appointment orders issued to them against the post of Senior Assistant in 1999/2000.
15. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. The applicants are basing their claim for seniority above the respondents on the premise that the appointment of the applicants was ab initio illegal when it was made in 1999/2000 and hence, the absorption of the applicants vide order dated 16.10.2004 allowing retrospective absorption of the respondents from 1999/2000 as Senior Assistants was incorrect. However, while making this plea, the applicants appear to have lost sight of the order dated 4.7.2002 in OA No. 1122/CH/1999 in which many of them were parties. The Tribunal had held at that time that there was no irregularity in the appointment of the respondents as Senior Assistants in 1999 and it was also held that the appointment was by way of transfer. In this view of the matter, since the respondents were appointed as Senior Assistants in the GMCH on transfer, as per the principles for determination of seniority, they are entitled to be shown as Senior Assistants in the Seniority List for this category from the date when they joined as such in GMCH in 1999/2000. The applicants, on the other hand, were promoted as Senior Assistants on the basis of the Recruitment Rules notified in 2002 after they completed the qualifying service as Junior Assistants and none of them has been promoted as Senior Assistant prior to 2002. Perforce, therefore, the respondents will have a higher position in the seniority list of Sr. Assistants vis a vis the applicants. Hence, there is no merit in the OA and the same is rejected. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(DR. BRAHM A.AGRAWAL)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: . .2015
ND*
1
OA. 1579/CH/2013