Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. This litigation has its roots in the Cabinet decision of October, 2003 vide which the approved permanent strength of the cadre of Section Officers was increased to 1400. For this increase in the strength necessary notification was to be issued separately to become effective, as per the decision of the Cabinet itself. The notification manifesting increase in the cadre strength came about on 27.2.2009. The official respondents would take the increased strength of the cadre from 2003 and make promotions for the vacancy year 2003 onwards. The applicant, by the time the increase in cadre strength aforesaid came about, was marginally short of the eligibility criteria, which, as per statutory rules, is eight years of service as Section Officer. The applicant being a 1996 batch officer would have the eligibility criteria in the year 2004 or 2005. Before we may make an elaborate mention of the pleadings, we may shortly cull out the basic contention raised in support of the plea that the applicant being senior despite not having the requisite qualifying service of eight years on the post of Section Officer, has to be considered along with her juniors. It is urged, in the first instance, that the Government through the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T), which is the nodal Ministry in all service matters as pertaining to Central Government employees, has issued memorandums from time to time, catering for the situation as the one in hand. It is spoken through the memorandums to be referred hereinafter, that where a senior may not have the eligibility criteria, but his or her juniors are being promoted, the eligibility criteria shall have to be relaxed. It is urged that these memos have to be read as part of the rules. Another contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that when the notification increasing the strength in the cadre came about in 2009, she was having far more number of years of service put on the post of Section Officer, and was admittedly answering the eligibility criteria. It is the case of the applicant that the Cabinet decision even though, might have been taken in October, 2003, it would be effective only from 2009 when the notification in that regard came to be issued, and that being so, the applicant would be eligible. To the contention, as mentioned above, the other limb is that if the respondents have to make promotions for the vacancy year 2003, the same cannot include promotions from the increased strength of the cadre. The third contention is that the memorandums, if may not be read as part of the rules or with the rules, would, in any case, be general directions across the board for relaxation in eligibility criteria of service. The fourth, but equally significant contention raised is that when there were sufficient and adequate grounds in existence for exempting the eligibility criteria for which ample powers exist in the statutory rules, in consideration of the entire material, the respondents proceeded in a right direction to give relaxation in rules to the applicant and other equally situate employees, and all notings and the orders made in that regard on official files were reversed by simply observing that relaxation in rules would lead to unnecessary litigation. It is urged that once, grounds justifying relaxation were in existence, it could not be overturned on the ground of anticipated litigation.

5. Challenge in the OA filed by Garima Singh under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to the decision of Department of Personnel & Training, the 1st respondent herein, communicated vide office memorandum dated 25.8.2009 relating to the Select List for the year 2003 of the officers of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) for appointment to Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Service by incorporating the newly created posts in the panel of Under Secretaries of 2003, which had not come into existence on 1.7.2003 and which were not included in the Approved Permanent Strength (APS) of the Grade-I as on 1.7.2003. The case of the applicant is that in fact these posts were notified on 27.2.2009 vide gazette notification following a decision of the Cabinet of October, 2003, and that by arbitrarily increasing the number of vacancies the 1st and 2nd respondents have included junior officers in the Section Officers grade of the CSS and excluded the applicant in the Select List of Grade-I for the year 2003, ignoring the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) headed by the Cabinet Secretary dated 10.9.2003 to resolve the direct recruit CSS officers seniority in the light of court judgments and based on the principles of equity to avoid possible litigation, and also the Minister of State (Personnel)s decision to grant relaxation of eligibility condition to the direct recruit CSS officers. Following prayers have been made in the OA:

11. We have heard Shri R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advocate, representing the applicant, and Shri R. V. Sinha, counsel representing respondents 1 and 3, assisted by a galaxy of lawyers, and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We may mention at the very outset the reason why this matter had to be referred to a larger Bench. We bodily lift our order dated 7.3.2011 constituting the Full Bench, which reads as follows:

Garima Singh filed OA No.1864/2009 in the Calcutta Bench being aggrieved and affected by the decision of the DOP&T, 1st respondent arrayed in the OA, communicated vide OM dated 25.8.2009 relating to the Select List for the year 2003 of officers of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) for appointment to Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Service by incorporating the newly created posts in the panel of Under Secretaries of 2003, which had not come into existence on 1.7.2003 and which were not included in the approved permanent strength (APS) of the Grade-I as on 1.7.2003. It is the case of the applicant that these posts were notified on 27.2.2009 vide gazette notification following a decision of the Cabinet in October, 2003, and by arbitrarily increasing the number of vacancies the 1st and 2nd respondents have included junior officers in the Section Officer grade of the Service and excluded the applicant in the Select List of Grade-I for the year 2003, ignoring the recommendations of the Committee of Secretaries (COS) headed by the Cabinet Secretary dated 10.9.2003 to resolve the direct recruit CSS officers seniority in the light of court judgments and based on the principles of equity to avoid possible litigation, and also the Minister of State (Personnel)s decision to grant relaxation of eligibility condition to the direct recruit CSS officers.