Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The applicant on selection by the UPSC was appointed against a reserved post to officiate as Assistant Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Law with effect from 1.9.1976. The UPSC's advertisement stipulated that the post was permanent but the appointment would be made on a temporary basis. It was further stated that the appointee would be on probation for a period of two years. It appears that though the advertisement for the post was issued on 27.3.1976 the reserved vacancy had arisen in 1974 on point No. 36 of the 40 point roster for reservation. Earlier on 31.5.1975 the UPSC had issued an advertisement for three vacancies including the one reserved for scheduled caste. However, no suitable scheduled caste candidate was available but respondent No. 6. Dr. V.K. Aggarwal was appointed against one of the unreserved posts. The first grievance of the applicant has been that since his appointment was against a reserved vacancy of 1974, he was entitled to seniority above respondents Nos. 6 and 9, who were appointed against general vacancies of 1975, in terms of the slot based reservation rule of seniority which prevailed up to 1986. His second grievance was that though the department undertook the confirmation of Assistant Legal Advisers in 1979 and certain number of his juniors were confirmed with effect from 18.4.1979 the applicant was ignored for such confirmation. He alleged that on the basis of this confirmation a DPC was convened in 1979 and on the basis of incorrect seniority position considered the cases of certain Assistant Legal Advisers for promotion as Deputy Legal Adviser and recommended two of his juniors for appointment and promotion. These appointment took place with effect from 25.2.1980 and 13.3.1980 respectively. Thereafter a seniority list was circulated in which the applicant was shown below his erstwhile juniors. The applicant made a representation but the same not having been considered favourably he filed a writ petition before the High Court which came to be transferred to the Tribunal as TA 814/85. The said TA was decided on 14.11.91 whereby the respondents were directed to hold a review DPC to consider the case of confirmation of the applicant with effect from 1.9.1978 and thereafter to also reconsider his case for promotion by a review DPC in case he was confirmed from an earlier date for promotion to the post of Deputy Legal Adviser. The review DPC which was convened recommended and approved his confirmation with effect from 1.9.1978 and this date of confirmation was notified by an order dated 20.7.1992 (Annexure-4). Following a CCP No. 308/92 an order was issued on 13.11.1992 (Annexure-5) showing the applicant at serial No. 2 in the grade of Assistant Legal Adviser as on 18.4.1979, The applicant states that in this seniority list he is clearly senior to one Shri N. Krishnamurthy. The applicant's case for promotion to Deputy Legal Adviser was also considered on the basis of the revised seniority list and approved with effect from 25.2.1980 retrospectively vide notification dated 7.5.1993 (Annexure-A-6). According to the applicant the seniority in the grade of Deputy Legal Adviser was to be determined on the basis of the date of substantive appointment and as appointment of Shri N. Krishnamurthy was made substantive at a later date than that of the applicant consequently he was deemed to be senior to Shri Krishnamurthy. He points out that till 1988 the rules provided for confirmation in each grade separately and it was only after the amendment of the rules in 1988 with prospective effect that confirmation was required in service only on a one time basis. Being senior to Shri Krishnamurthy it is the applicant's case that he would be also deemed senior to all others to whom Shri Krishnamurthy was senior. Since this was not done, the applicant made a representation dated 27.5.1993 (Annexure-9) which according to him has not been decided so far despite a lapse of 16 months. The case of the applicant was also considered by a review DPC on 14.9.1993 for promotion to the post of Additional Legal Adviser. The applicant alleges that Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, who was junior to him as Assistant Legal Adviser participated in the said review DPC in which the applicant was approved for promotion retrospectively as Additional Legal Adviser with effect from 31.12.1985. However, in the seniority list of Additional Legal Advisers published by order, dated 2.12.1993 (Annexure-13) the applicant was shown at serial No. 19 while Shri N. Krishnamurthy was shown at serial No. 5 though in fact Shri Krishnamurthy was junior to the applicant. However, the representation dated 10.12.1993 of the applicant is still pending with the respondents. The applicant alleges that it was because Dr. V.K. Aggarwal was part of the review DPC that the applicant was no given promotion as Additional Legal Adviser as per his correct seniority of Deputy Legal Adviser. This anomaly continued when the respondents constituted a review DPC for applicant's case for promotion as Legal Adviser-cum-Joint Secretary and approved his promotion vide notification dated 11.3.1994 (Annexure-16) with effect from 12.10.1989. His seniority in that Grade-I was also as at serial No. 15 while that of Shri N. Krishnamurthy was shown at serial No. 3.

7. We may first take up the grievance of the applicant in regard to his seniority as Assistant Legal Adviser. The case of the applicant is that as per the roster point the vacancy for Assistant Legal Adviser in the reserved quota became available in 1974. This vacancy was advertised in 1975 along with two other vacancies for general categories. However, no suitable scheduled caste candidate having been found the vacancy was carried over to 1976. Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Dr. S.C. Jain, however, came to be appointed in the general vacancies of 1975. As per the rules then in existence the applicant claims that he was entitled to his seniority above Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Dr. S.C. Jain. We find that this was done by an order dated 13.11.1992 (Annexure-5) after the review DPC confirmed the appointment of the applicant as Assistant Legal Adviser with effect from 1.9.1978. In the seniority list enclosed to that order the applicant was shown at serial No. 2 while Dr. V.K. Aggarwal was shown at serial No. 13. We find, however, that the subsequent retrospective promotion of the applicant as Deputy Legal Adviser did not protect the inter se seniority position of the applicant. In the seniority list enclosed with the Order No. 64 dated 17.5.1993 (Annexure-7) the applicant was shown at serial No. 11 while Dr. V.K. Aggarwal at serial No. 4 and Shri R.L. Meena at serial No. 8. We find that this change came about because unlike the applicant who was appointed as Deputy Legal Adviser under the promotion quota Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Shri R.L. Meena came to be appointed to that position under the direct recruitment quota through the UPSC. Dr. V.K. Aggarwal's appointment in the grade of Deputy Legal Adviser was 31.3.1978 while that of Shri R.L. Meena was 8.8.1980. Due to rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees the applicant was placed below Dr. (Kum) A. Vedavalli, who was appointed as a direct recruit on 26.12.1979 while Shri R.L. Meena came against reserved post for ST at serial No. 8. It is thus clear that the applicant's contention that he was entitled to seniority above Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Shri R.L. Meena is not tenable as Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Shri R.L. Meena became senior to the applicant as Deputy Legal Adviser having Joined that grade as direct recruits unlike the applicant who came through the promotion route. We find that as per the subsequent seniority list of the Central Legal Service Dr. S.C. Jain who was promoted with effect from 1.2.1981 as Deputy Legal Adviser came to be promoted as Additional Legal Adviser on 10.7.1984 as a direct recruit, Thus, Dr. S.C. Jain also became senior to the applicant as Additional Legal Adviser Grade-II of the Indian Legal Service because of his earlier appointment through the method of direct recruitment while the applicant herein came against the promotion vacancy available in 1985. On this reading, therefore, the applicant can claim neither seniority over Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, Shri R.L. Meena or Dr. S.C. Jain but also cannot establish any impropriety in the conduct of the DPCs on account of the participation of Dr. V.K. Aggarwal and Dr. S.C. Jain since for the respective DPCs these two respondents had already become senior to the applicant.