P. Veeramani and Others vs Union of India (UOI), M.A. Palaniswamy and Central Administrative Tribunal

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

Both the writ petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 488 of 2000, dated

25.4.2001. Such O.A. was filed by the present respondent No. 3 in W.P. No. 23321 of 2001 challenging the revised seniority list issued by the

Government whereunder, the present writ petitioners 1 to 5 in W.P. No. 23321 of 2001 were placed above him.

The brief facts are as follows:- The present writ petitioners have been recruited as against the sports quota to the post of Inspector of Central

Excise, whereas the present respondent No. 3 was recruited through the Staff Selection Commission. In the seniority list, such respondent No. 3

was placed senior to the present writ petitioners. However, about 16 years after, apparently on the basis of the representation made by the present

petitioners, the Government re-fixed the seniority by placing the writ petitioners above respondent No. 3 and four others. The Tribunal interfered

with such revised seniority list only on the ground that seniority had been fixed earlier about 14 years back and, therefore, after a long lapse of

time, the Government should not have changed the seniority list. Such order is being challenged by the employees as well as by the Union of India.

The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the instruction issued by the Department, the seniority of

persons selected through sports quota should relate back to the date on which the recommendation has been made. On the aforesaid contention,

both the learned Counsel have taken us through the relevant instructions issued as per O.M. No. 14015/1/78-Estt(E), dated 04.8.1980, which is

extracted hereunder:

Where sportsmen are recruited through the Employment Exchange or by direct advertisements and are considered along with other general

category candidates, they may be assigned seniority in the order in which they are placed in the panel for selection.

...

Where recruitment to a post is through a selection made by the S.S.C. whether by a competitive examination or otherwise, the sportsmen recruited

by the departments themselves should be placed enbloc junior to those who have already been recommended by the S.S.C. the inter se seniority

of sportsmen will be in the order of selection.

We are afraid that the interpretation advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. A bare reading of the aforesaid

O.M. indicates that where selection takes place through same selection process, the seniority should be ascertained in the order in which the

candidates are placed in the panel for selection. The other part of the instruction is a special provision relating to the candidates selected by the

Staff Selection Commission. The said instruction only indicates that so far as the general candidates selected by the Staff Selection Commission are

concerned, the sportsmen recruited by the departments should be placed enbloc junior to those who have already been recommended by the Staff

Selection Commission and inter se seniority of sportsmen should be made in the order of selection.

In the present case, the competition is between the persons selected under sports quota and persons selected through Staff Selection

Commission. It is not in dispute that so far as the Staff Selection Commission candidates are concerned, such recommendation was made in

September 1981, whereas so far as the sportspersons are concerned, even though recommendation was made in August 1981, the actual

appointment was made in January 1982. Therefore, applying the clear principle indicated in the latter part of the instruction, the candidates selected

through Staff Selection Commission have to be treated as seniors to the sportspersons, who were recruited only in January 1982.

In such view of the matter, we are unable to accept the submissions made by the counsel for all the petitioners.

Even otherwise, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for allowing the Original Application appears to be germane. There is no dispute that the

persons selected through Staff Selection Commission were placed as seniors and such seniority list had continued for a period of 16 years. Law is

well settled that in the matters relating to seniority, settled list should not be unsettled after a long lapse of time. The Tribunal applied the above

principle and allowed the O.A. filed by the present respondent No. 3. This conclusion of the Tribunal is also justified.

In the above view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.