Gaurav Kumar Joshi & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Per Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

Brief facts of the case are that the applicants appeared in the Engineering Services Examinations (ESE) conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and, having qualified the examinations on merit, were placed in the respective reserve lists and subsequently appointed to the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS). Since the applicants were appointed at a later date owing to the delayed operation of the reserve lists and issuance of appointment orders, they joined service later than the candidates recommended from the main merit lists. It is stated that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), vide Office Memorandum dated 11.11.2010, clarified that the inter-se seniority of candidates appointed from the reserve panel would be determined in accordance with the consolidated merit list prepared by the UPSC. Reliance has also been placed on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2012, which clarified the position concerning reserve-list candidates appointed through earlier selection processes.

It is further stated that the applicants were initially assigned appropriate seniority in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) in the seniority lists issued as on 01.01.2016 and 01.01.2017. However, in the subsequent seniority list of IOFS officers as on 01.01.2020, their seniority was substantially lowered, allegedly without issuing any notice to them. For instance, Applicant No. 1, Gaurav Kumar Joshi, who was placed at Serial No. 49 in the JTS seniority list as on 01.01.2016, was subsequently placed at Serial No. 229 in the impugned Senior Time Scale (STS) seniority list, below Shri Rajendra Kumar Kumhar, who was placed at Serial No. 189, despite both belonging to the ESE 2011 selection process. Similarly, Applicant No. 6, Gade Nagendra Rao, was placed below Shri Shekhar Anuj in the impugned seniority list, although the former had earlier been placed above the latter in the JTS seniority list and both belonged to the ESE 2012 selection process. An anomaly has also been pointed out in the case of Applicant No. 14, Ramjan Pansare Munir, who was initially placed above Shri Kundu Subir in the JTS seniority list but was subsequently placed below him in the impugned seniority list.

The applicants are stated to have submitted several representations seeking restoration of their seniority. However, their grievances were not redressed, and the impugned seniority position was maintained by the respondents. It is further stated that the applicants were not considered for promotion to the STS along with their respective batchmates and juniors on the ground that they had not completed the prescribed probation period, even though the delay in their appointment and consequential completion of probation was attributable to the respondents. The applicants contend that Rule 10 of the IOFS Recruitment Rules prescribes a probation period of two years for officers appointed to the JTS, while Schedule II provides for promotion to the STS after four years of service in the JTS. They also rely upon Rule 12 of the said Rules, which empowers the Government to relax the provisions of the Rules in appropriate cases.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned seniority list is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11.11.2010, which provides for determination of the inter-se seniority of reserve-panel candidates in accordance with the consolidated merit list prepared by the UPSC. It is contended that candidates appointed from the main merit list and the reserve list, having qualified the same examination, cannot be treated differently for the purpose of determining seniority merely because the latter were appointed at a later date due to administrative exigencies. According to the learned counsel, the applicants were correctly assigned seniority in the initial grade of JTS in accordance with their merit and the applicable DoPT instructions, and the same ought to have been maintained while determining their seniority in the higher grade of STS.

Learned counsel further submits that the impugned seniority list suffers from serious anomalies, as candidates belonging to the same examination batch and even candidates appointed from the reserve panel have been placed in an order inconsistent with their earlier seniority and relative merit. It is argued that the respondents cannot deprive the applicants of their rightful seniority and promotional opportunities on account of delays attributable to the administration in issuing appointment orders and operating the reserve lists. The applicants cannot be penalised for not completing the prescribed probation period by the time their juniors were considered for promotion, when such delay was not of their own making.

It is further contended that the IOFS Recruitment Rules must be read harmoniously with the relevant DoPT instructions, and the power of relaxation under Rule 12 ought to have been considered to address the peculiar circumstances of the case. Learned counsel submits that the applicants have an unblemished service record and have been granted promotions from time to time on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committees. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned seniority list, insofar as it adversely affects the applicants, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned seniority list be set aside to the extent it adversely affects the applicants and that their seniority be restored in accordance with their merit position and the applicable DoPT instructions, with consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the impugned seniority list has been prepared in accordance with the applicable rules and DoPT guidelines, and no rule or instruction has been violated. It is contended that although the seniority of candidates appointed from the main merit list and the reserve list is determined on the basis of their merit in the relevant examination, the probation period commences only from the date of joining service. Therefore, candidates appointed from the reserve list at a later date cannot claim parity with candidates from the main merit list in respect of the commencement and completion of probation.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicants were initially assigned appropriate seniority in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) in accordance with the inter-se merit determined by the UPSC. However, such seniority does not confer an absolute right to retain the same relative position throughout their service career, as seniority in the Senior Time Scale (STS) is subject to the applicable eligibility conditions and the outcome of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). It is submitted that Applicant No. 1 was not considered for promotion to the STS for the vacancy year 2016–17, as he had not completed the prescribed probation period and did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. He was subsequently considered for promotion for the vacancy year 2017–18 and promoted with effect from 01.04.2017, with seniority assigned in accordance with the applicable guidelines. The same principle was followed in the case of the other applicants.

Learned counsel also submits that the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2012, relied upon by the applicants, pertains to candidates selected through the Civil Services Examination and is not applicable to candidates recruited through the Engineering Services Examination. It is further contended that the recommendations in respect of the applicants were received from the Railway Board on 11.07.2014, substantially later than the recommendations concerning candidates from the main list of ESE 2010, which were issued between December 2011 and March 2012. Since appointment orders could be issued only after receipt of the requisite recommendations, the respondents cannot be held responsible for the applicants joining service at a later date or completing their probation subsequently. Accordingly, the allegation of administrative delay, arbitrariness or discrimination is denied.

Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the seniority assigned to the applicants in the impugned STS seniority list as on 01.01.2020 is justified and consistent with the applicable rules and guidelines. It is contended that the applicants have failed to establish any illegality in the impugned action or any entitlement to the reliefs sought. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the Original Application be dismissed as being devoid of merit.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The principal issue for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled to restoration of their earlier seniority in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) while determining their seniority in the Senior Time Scale (STS), notwithstanding the fact that they were not considered for promotion along with their respective batches on account of non-completion of the prescribed probation period.

It is an admitted position that the applicants were appointed to the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) from the reserve lists of the Engineering Services Examinations conducted by the UPSC and were initially assigned seniority in the JTS in accordance with their inter-se merit. However, the assignment of seniority in the initial grade, by itself, does not dispense with the requirement of fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions for promotion to the higher grade. The applicants' claim for restoration of their earlier relative seniority in the STS has, therefore, to be examined in the light of the applicable Recruitment Rules and the relevant instructions governing promotion and seniority.

The respondents have explained that the applicants could not be considered for promotion to the STS along with their respective batches as they had not completed the prescribed probation period by the relevant dates. It has further been submitted that the applicants' recommendations for appointment were received from the Railway Board at a later stage and that the appointment orders could be issued only thereafter. Consequently, their probation commenced from the respective dates of joining service. The applicants have not been able to establish, on the basis of the material placed on record, that the respondents acted in violation of any specific statutory provision by considering their eligibility for promotion with reference to the applicable conditions of service.

The contention of the applicants that their seniority in the JTS ought to have been maintained unchanged in the STS also cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. Seniority in the feeder grade and eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade operate in their respective fields. While the merit position of candidates appointed from a reserve list may be relevant for determining their inter-se seniority in accordance with the applicable instructions, such instructions cannot, without more, be construed as dispensing with the prescribed conditions for promotion. The applicants have not demonstrated that the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11.11.2010 mandates the automatic restoration of their earlier relative seniority in the STS, irrespective of their eligibility for promotion during the relevant vacancy years.

As regards the reliance placed upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 09.05.2012, the respondents have disputed its applicability to candidates recruited through the Engineering Services Examination. The applicants have not established that the said memorandum, in the circumstances of the present case, confers upon them an enforceable right to claim the relief sought. Similarly, the plea for relaxation under Rule 12 of the IOFS Recruitment Rules does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to such relaxation. In the absence of sufficient material demonstrating that the respondents acted contrary to the applicable rules or that the applicants were entitled to the claimed benefit under a binding instruction, no direction for grant of relaxation can be issued merely on the basis of the applicants' grievances.

The applicants have also relied upon certain instances of alleged anomalies in the impugned seniority list. However, the mere difference between the relative positions assigned in the JTS and STS seniority lists does not, by itself, establish that the impugned seniority list is illegal. The applicants were required to demonstrate that the disputed placements were contrary to the governing rules or applicable instructions. On the material placed before us, the applicants have not established sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned seniority list as on 01.01.2020.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no sufficient ground to hold that the impugned seniority list warrants interference by this Tribunal. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.