Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d) restrain the respondent no.1 and 2 from filling up the higher post of JDD/Executive, Add/Executive by applying Rule of reservation in promotion and accelerated seniority;

(e) Hold and declare that the applicants are entitled for seniority over the reserved category in the cadre of DCIO/AD by application of Catch-up rule of seniority in these grades and consequently direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to consider the applicants for promotion from the dates such juniors have been promoted in the grade of DCIO/AD/JDD and consequently direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to hold review DPC;

1. ACIO-II 4200

2. ACIO-I 4600

3. DCIO 5400

4. AD 6600

5. JDD 7600

6. ADD 8700

7. DD 8900 The post of ACIO-II is in Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-; ACIO-I in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-; DCIO in Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-; AD in Grade Pay of Rs.6600/-; JDD in Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-; ADD in Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-; and DD in Grade Pay of Rs.8900/-. The post of ACIO-II at the bottom of the aforesaid chart is the feeder grade for the post of ACIO-I. Similarly, the post of ACIO-I is the feeder grade for DCIO;

DCIO is the feeder grade for AD; AD is the feeder grade for JDD; JDD is the feeder grade for ADD; and ADD is the feeder grade for the post of DD. The posts of DCIO onwards are gazetted cadre posts in terms of the recruitment rules notified vide memorandum dated 08.04.2010. Respondents 3 to 13 belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. All of them were junior to the applicants at the time of their recruitment. Being from the reserved categories, they got accelerated promotion based upon the reservation policy of the respondents no.1 and 2. A seniority list of Assistant Directors (ADs) was published on 11.09.2014. Applicant No.1 is shown at serial number 731, whereas names of applicant Nos.2 and 3 figure at serial numbers 950 and 655 OA-3623/2015 respectively of the aforesaid seniority list. These applicants were appointed as ACIO-II on 04.08.1986, 29.07.1986 and 10.06.1986 respectively. The private respondents 3 to 13 were lower in seniority than the applicants. The private respondents were promoted as ACIO-I, DCIO, AD and JDD on the basis of reservation policy on account of accelerated promotion from time to time. Vide order dated 30.06.2015, the private respondents were promoted from the post of AD/Exe. to the rank of JD/Exe. from the dates they assumed charge. In the aforesaid order, the private respondents were placed en bloc over and above the general category candidates. It is alleged that respondents 1 and 2 are granting accelerated promotion and consequential seniority on the promotional posts to the reserved category candidates. No vacancy roster and roster points for SC/ST are maintained. The catch-up rule is not being followed. It is also alleged that promotions of the private respondents are in excess of the quota for SC/ST, i.e., 15% and 7.5% respectively. In sum and substance, the grievance of the applicants is that for grant of accelerated promotion and consequential seniority, respondents No.1 and 2 are required to collect the data, and if it is found that such reserved categories are inadequately represented, they may be granted accelerated promotion and consequential seniority in promotion. Promotion of the private respondents and seniority given to them on promotional posts are said to be violative of the OA-3623/2015 judgments of the Apex Court in M. Nagaraj & others v Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212]; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v Rajesh Kumar [(2012) 7 SCC 1]; Suraj Bhan Meena v State of Rajastha [(2011) 1 SCC 467]; and S. Panneer Selvam & others v Government of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 10 SCC 292].

9. The next question raised by the applicants is challenge to the seniority of the private respondents and other reserved category candidates at the level of AD, JD and JDD. It is an admitted position that the reservation is applicable up to the level of DCIO. The private OA-3623/2015 respondents were promoted as DCIO/Exe. in the DPC held in the year 2006-2007, whereas applicant Nos. 1 and 3 were promoted in the DPC held in the year 2007-2008 and applicant No.2 was promoted in the DPC held in the year 2008-2009. On the promotion of the applicants to the post of DCIO, they never claimed the benefit of catch-up rule and accepted the seniority of the reserved category candidates over and above them. The private respondents were later promoted to the ranks of AD/Exe. and ADD/Exe. No reservation is prescribed for the ranks of AD/Exe. and above. Seniority of the applicants qua the private respondents at the level of DCIO came to be settled. The applicants never challenged the same. The private respondents and other reserved category candidates became senior to them and earned further promotions to the posts of AD and JDD. This OA has been filed in the year 2015 challenging the seniority at the level of AD which was published on 11.09.2014. As a matter of fact, seniority of the private respondents in this seniority list at the level of AD has been carried forward from the post of DCIO. The grievance of the applicants should have been at the level of DCIO and not at the level of AD. The applicants having accepted their seniority qua the reserved category candidates at the level of DCIO are not entitled to challenge the seniority at the level of AD at this belated stage, notwithstanding the fact that the catch-up rule applies and the applicants were entitled to claim their seniority over and OA-3623/2015 above the reserved category candidates on their promotion to the post of DCIO. It is settled law that settled seniority cannot be disturbed. Since we are not interfering in the impugned seniority, no directions can be issued in respect to promotions based upon impugned seniority list.