Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The issue involved in these two OAs is the same. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts of OA- 3055/2014 are being discussed hereunder:-

2. The applicants joined the respondents' organization in the year 2005 as Inspectors (Central Excise) on the basis of CGLE-2003 conducted by SSC.

17 OA-3055/2014 with OA-3518/2014 According to them, some of them secured very high ranks in the said examination. For example, applicant No.1 secured rank No.1 and applicant No.2 secured rank No.6 etc. Earlier, the selections to this post were made by SSC on zonal basis by preparing zonal merit list. This policy was, however, challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 60. By their judgment dated 09.12.1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down zonal selections and mandated that future selections shall not be made on zonal basis. When the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court came, the SSC was in the process of conducting the zonal selection. They have, however, cancelled the same and resorted to selection in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants were candidates in the next selection held in the year 2003 through CGLE-2003. They were appointed in the year 2005. They were, however, allocated different zones by the respondents without taking any option from the candidates. In support of their contention, the applicants have produced a copy of information obtained under RTI on 03.05.2006, according to which, zones were allocated to the candidates primarily on the basis of their permanent home address i.e. the allocated zone was nearest to their permanent home address depending on the availability of vacancy (this contention has not been disputed by the respondents).

6. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001."

13. Learned counsel argued that as far as official respondents No. 1, 2 & 6 were concerned, there was no doubt that they were necessary parties since they would be concerned with formulation of Recruitment Rules. Respondent No. 3 - Member (P&V) has been impleaded as he was heading Committee constituted by the department to look into the problem of huge disparities in promotion in different regions. Learned counsel for the applicants has produced document to substantiate his claim that Member (P&V) was indeed Chairman of such a Committee. Learned counsel also argued that respondents No. 4 & 5, namely, Joint Secretary (Admn.) of Central Board of Excise & Custom and Director General (HRD) of the same Board shall also be concerned since this was a matter regarding the HR policies of the department. After hearing the parties, we are inclined to agree with the applicants and reject this objection of the official respondent as well. 13.1 The next argument of official respondent was that the O.A. is barred by limitation. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants argued that 33 OA-3055/2014 with OA-3518/2014 although the applicant had joined the department in the year 2005, they were now being considered for promotion after having put in required 08 years of service as Inspector. Learned counsel stated that when the OA was filed in August, 2014 and even till 01.09.2014 when it came up for admission, no promotions from the CGLE batch to which the applicants belong have been made. Since it was promotion on the basis of All India seniority that the applicants were seeking, it is now that their grievance has arisen and, therefore, there was no delay in filing this O.A. On the other hand, as mentioned above, both learned counsel for the official respondents Sh. R.N. Singh and learned counsel for private respondent Sh. A.K. Behera had argued that the cause of action as far as the applicants were concerned arose at the time of allocation of zone to them on their initial appointment in the year 2005. The main grievance of the applicants was that zone was allocated to them without taking any choices from them or without giving them any option. Consequently, they got allocated to a zone (purportedly on the basis of permanent address of the applicants) in which there was stagnation. Delayed promotion was now only a consequence of zone allocation done to the applicants. The applicants had accepted the zone allocation at that time without demur and it did not lie in their mouth to challenge the same now. Having heard the parties, we find merit in the contention of the private respondents. The applicants should have protested at the time of zone allocation. On the contrary, they accepted the same with open eyes as it gave them the benefit of serving near their native place since it was done on the basis of their permanent addresses. Subsequently, realising that there was stagnation in the zone to which they were allocated, they have approached this Tribunal for directions to the respondents to make promotion on All India seniority basis.

14. We are, however, not impressed by these arguments of the applicants. While the Bhardwaj Committee report and Revenue Secretary's Note do establish that the respondents realized that the problem of disparities in promotion in different regions is a genuine one, production of these documents does not help the applicants in any manner as they cannot serve the purpose of extending the limitation period. That period will be counted from the date on which the cause of action first arose. This, as already mentioned above, was the time when zone allocation was done to the applicants in the year 2005. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this O.A. suffers from delay and laches and is barred by limitation.

36 OA-3055/2014 with OA-3518/2014

17. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Rule in question providing for zonal seniority was also in contravention of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh's case (supra).

18. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and in our opinion there is not a whisper in the same regarding the system of zone allocation and preparation of zonal seniority. The judgment itself is confined to the selection process adopted at the time of initial recruitment. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to give equal chance to all those getting equal marks, the system of zonal selection cannot be permitted. However, there is nothing in the aforesaid judgment on the basis of which it could be extended to zonal promotions as well.