Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. This question has been examined in detail by this Department in consultation with the UPSC and it has now been decided that the starting point in the roster should be that mode of recruitment prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for which the selection process had been completed first. For this purpose, the date of completion of the selection process will be determined as follows:

Direct recruitment Date of completion of Selection Process

(a) Through examination conducted by UPSC or any other authorities. Date of publication/announce-ment of results

(b) Through interviews conducted by UPSC or any other authorities. Date of commissions letter containing their recommendations Promotion Date of completion of Selection Process

(a) Where UPSC is associated Date of UPSCs letter containing their recommendations ratifying the promotion

(b) Were UPSC is not associated or its formal concurrent is not required. Last date of DPC meeting ) Limited Departmental Examination.

Date of announcement of results

3. A new roster will have to be started in the following cases:

Sd/-

( N. Rangarajan ) Deputy Secretary

13. As would be seen, for promotion where UPSC is not associated or its formal concurrence is not required, the date of completion of selection process will be the last date of DPC meeting whereas for the LDCE, it would be the date of announcement of results. Para 2 of the OM also provides that starting point in the roster should be that mode of recruitment prescribed in the recruitment rules for which the selection process had been completed first.

17. The official respondents also supported the stand of respondent no.5 and in addition, raised the issue of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, stating that the OA was premature. Given the explanation of the applicant, we feel that there was sufficient reason for him to approach this Tribunal as his repeated representations were not being answered and were never replied to. We hold that this OA is not hit by Section 20 of the AT Act, 1985.

18. From the facts of the case, it is clear that in the original seniority list of Assistants, respondent no.5 was at serial no.97, Smt. Tulsa Gupta at serial no.99 and the applicant at serial no.151. There was a DPC held on 24.11.2006 in which respondent no.5 was also considered but for some unexplained reasons, his name did not appear in the final list of recommended Assistants to be promoted as SOs. Smt. Tulsa Guptas name was there. The applicant had no knowledge of this DPC and consequential order thereon. In the meantime, exams for LDCE were held in 2006 and results declared in 2007. Respondent no.5 and the applicant joined the post of Section Officer on 4.01.2007. When the seniority list was issued on 28.05.2008, respondent no.5 came to know that Smt. Tulsa Gupta was at serial no.52, applicant at serial no.55 and he was at serial no.77 though in the Assistant seniority list, he was above both of them. To cut the story short, the matter was referred to the DoP&T and the DoP&T advised that respondent no.5 should be given an option to either opt for LDCE or the seniority mode. This was only for the reason because he was considered by the DPC held on 24.11.2006 but not promoted, though being senior to Smt. Tulsa Gupta. The point raised by the applicant that the DoP&T made an error is not valid. Actually the respondent no.5 had been wronged because though being senior, he had been superseded for no fault of his. Therefore, DOP&Ts advice is perfectly in order. Based on DoP&Ts advice, DPC was held and respondent no.5 placed above Smt. Tulsa Gupta in the seniority list. To this extent, decisions taken by DPC meetings dated 28.04.2006, 26.02.007, 29.03.2007, 27.03.2008, 1.05.2009, 28.04.2010, 29.10.2010 and 3.06.2011 were suitably modified. In fact, respondent no.5 should have been given option earlier in which the respondents failed. We also agree with the contention of the respondents that N.R. Parmars case (supra) and the circulars relied upon by the applicant do not apply in the present case as those apply where the recruitment is through two different modes namely direct recruitment and promotion to a particular post. The present matter relates to promotion and within the promotion mode, there are two channels and this is squarely covered by the 1978 circular. Applying 1978 circular, date of completion of selection process for the promotion route should be taken as last date of DPC meeting, which in this case is 28.04.2006. For the departmental examination, it will be taken as the date of announcement of results, which is January, 2007. Therefore, the period of 4.01.2007 to 1.02.2007 held by respondent no.5 will be treated as ad hoc but he would definitely be treated senior both to Smt. Tulsa Gupta and the applicant as per 1978 OM.