AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA WP(C)(CAT) No.04 of 2026
The Dy. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (HR), O/o the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 9, Deen Dayal Upadhaya Marg, New Delhi – 110124
The Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, PO- Kunjaban, PIN-799006, Agartala, West Tripura .........Petitioner(s); Versus
Mr. Hare Krishna Roy, Son of late Kshirode Chandra Roy, Madhya Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. East Agartala, Dist- West Tripura
Sri Subhas Debbarma, son of late Dhan Chandra Debbarma, Ujan Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, PIN-799005, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura
Sri Manik Bhadra, son of late Mano Mohan Bhadra, Rama Krishna Road, Katasheola, P.O. Jogendranagar, PIN-799004, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura
Sri Partha Pratim Deb Roy, son of late Pulin Behari Deb Roy, East Part of old Central Jail, P.O. Dhaleswar, PIN-799007, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura
Sri Prasenjit Pal, son of late Shibaji Pal, Krishnanagar, Datta Kutir bye lane, Near Sanghati Club, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura
Sri Ujjwal Kumar Das, son of late Shyam Sundar Das, Qtr No-T/III/22, AG’s Residential Complex, 79 Tilla P.O. Kunjaban, PIN-799006, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
Sri Jantu Lal Roy, son of late Suresh Ch. Roy, Rohan Apartment, GB-ITI Road, P.O. Indranagar, PIN-799006, P.S. NCC, District- West Tripura
Sri Pradip Kumar Nandi, son of late Gouranga Ch. Nandi, Krishnanagar Pragati Road, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
Sri Subrata Saha, son of late Naresh Ch. Saha, Mahendra Apartment, Bhagaban Thakur Chowmohani, Banamalipur (N), P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
Sri Biswanath Chakraborty, son of late Priyanath Chakraborty, Ramnagar Road No-4, P.O. Ramnagar, PIN-799002, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
Smt. Sima Das, wife of Sri Sanchayan Das, Qtr No-III/8, Kumaritalla Qtr Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, PIN-799006, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
Sri Biswajit Datta, son of Sri Jatindra Datta, Bhatripally Road, MB Tilla, P.O- A.D. Nagar, PIN-799003, P.S. AD Nagar, District- West Tripura
Sri Babul Bhowmik, son of late Gopal Ch. Bhowmik, East Shibnagar, P.O. Agartala College, PIN-799004, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura
Sri Mrityunjoy Bhowmik, son of late Nityananda Bhowmik, Hapania, P.O. ONGC, PIN-799014, P.S. Amtali, District-West Tripura
Shri Nitai Banik, Ramnagar, Road No.4, Last Ramnagar, Agartala, PIN-799002, West Tripura
Shri Abhijit Kr. Bandhyopadhyay, North Badharghat, Subhashpalli, Agartala, PIN-799003, West Tripura
Smt. Sulekha Sarkar, Shyamalima Apartment, Flat Type-A2, Block No-4, Flat No-4, P.O. New Capital Complex, PIN-799010, Agartala, West Tripura
Smt. Shyamasri Debbarma (Roy Barman), Dhaleswar Road No.3, P.O. Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799007
Shri Tapan Kr. Pal, son of late Ramesh Ch. Pal, Town Pratapgarh, New Gangail Road (East side of Hanging Bridge), P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
Shri Sanjit Datta Choudhury, resident of Indranagar, near Shiksha Niketan School, P.O. Indranagar, PIN-799006, P.S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura
Shri Tapas Kanti Roy, C/o Suchismita Roy, Flat No.201, Vijoy Bodke Apartment, Pune, Maharashtra, PIN-411038
Shri Subrata Biswas, Melarmath, HGB Road, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
Shri Dipankar Debnath, C/o Lt. Krishna Mohan Debnath, resident of Dhaleswar Road No.1, P.O. Dhaleswar, PIN-799007, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
Shri Anit Kumar Saha, resident of Indranagar, Madhyapara, P.O. Abhoynagar, PIN-799005, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
Shri Shyamal Chakraborty, resident of A.D. Nagar, Road No-14, P.O. S.D. Mission, PIN-799003, P.S. AD Nagar, District- West Tripura
Smt. Chirasree Chakraborty, resident of UPAHAR Apartment, (Opposite to A.G. Office), Kunjaban, P.O. Abhoynagar, PIN-799006, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
Shri Balaram Basak, resident of Ward No.7, Ujan Abhoynagar, near Gramin Bank, P.O. Abhoynagar, PIN-799005, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura
Shri Manik Sarkar, resident of West Pratapgarh, (Near Vivekananda Vidya Mandir), P.O. Arundhatinagar, PIN-799003, Agartala, West Tripura
Shri Dilip Karmakar, C/o Shri Uttam Chandra Karmakar, Vill- Barajaguli, Area- Haringhata, Town- Digha, Thana- Haringhata, Nadia, West Bengal
Smt. Sanghamitra Ghosh, C/o Jagnabolkya Chakraborty, resident of East Chanmari, below side of Rubber Board, PO. Bankumari, PIN-799006, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
Shri Mihir Ranjan Dhar, resident of Dhaleswar, Road No-16, P.O. Dhaleswar, PIN-799007, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura
Shri Sujit Kar, resident of Block-2, A2 (Modified), Flat No.203, Shyamalima Apartment, P.O. Kunjaban, PIN-799010, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
Shri Sankar Datta, resident of A.D. Nagar, Madhyapara, P.O. AD Nagar, PIN-799003, P.S. AD Nagar, District- West Tripura
Shri Pranay Chakraborty, resident of Ward No-15, L.N. Bari Road, Ganaraj Chowhuhani, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura
Shri Partha Bhattacharya, resident of near Town Hall, Palace Compound, P.O. Agartala, PIN-799001, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura .........Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Agniva Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Date of hearing : 03.08.2026 Date of Judgment & Order : 18.08.2026.
Whether Fit for Reporting : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dt.21.11.2025 of the Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.041/00260/2021.
Respondents No.1 to 14 had filed the said OA before the Tribunal questioning the proceedings dt.15.02.2021 and 25.05.2021 of respondents issuing clarification regarding eligibility of respondents No.15 to 35 to be considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. They also sought for a direction to the petitioners to give promotion to respondents No.1 to 14 to the post of Supervisor as they were senior to respondents No.15 to 35.
Respondents No.1 to 14 at the time of filing of the OA, were serving as Assistant Supervisors in the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura.
The background facts:
On 15.10.2020, the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General (N) issued a proceeding to redistribute the post of Assistant Supervisors into Assistant Supervisor (Audit) and Assistant Supervisor (Accounts), and provided for the method of recruitments to the said posts by way of promotion from the post of Senior Auditor and Senior Accountant respectively.
As per the norms laid down in the said proceeding dt.15.10.2020, Senior Accountants in Level 6 of Pay Matrix with 5 years regular service in the grade, and who have successfully completed the training of 2-4 weeks as prescribed by the Training Wing of Headquarters Office followed by a centralized examination conducted by the Examination wing of Headquarters Office, on their securing qualifying marks in the said examination, will be promoted from post of Senior Accountant to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts).
Thus the pass in the examination conducted after undergoing training was a condition precedent for being considered for such promotion.
After the said norms were issued on 15.10.2020, the respondents No.1 to 14/applicants in the OA along with nine others (who were working as Senior Accountants), were held eligible to appear in the Training Evaluation Examination for promotion as Assistant Supervisor (Accounts), and a proceeding dt.14.12.2020 was issued in that regard by the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tripura. The Training Evaluation Examination was held on 19.12.2020.
But at that time respondents 15 to 35, who were also Senior Accountants, did not appear for the said examination.
Thereafter since the respondents No.1 to 14 passed in the Training Evaluation Examination held on 19.12.2020, it was notified on 29.12.2020 that they had passed the said examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) from the post of Senior Accountant along with eight others.
Out of these 22 Senior Accountants, 16 Senior Accountants from the panel list, as per seniority, were promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) on 31.12.2020. The respondents No.1 to 11 were included in this order.
The top four Assistant Supervisors (Accounts), on the basis of their qualifying in the first batch exam passed panel list, were then further promoted to the post of Supervisor (Accounts) as per availability of sanctioned posts through an Establishment Order dt.18.01.2021 issued by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura on condition that promotion will take effect from 01.01.2021 notionally, and actually from the date of their taking over of charge of the post in the Level 8 of Pay Matrix of the 7th CPC. But no one from amongst respondents No.1-14 was given such promotion.
In the resultant four vacancies of Assistant Supervisors (Accounts), four more Senior Accountants from the remaining seniority panel list of 22 qualified Senior Accountants of the first batch of exam held on 19.12.2020, were promoted as Assistant Supervisors (Accounts) by an Establishment Order dt.20.01.2021. These included respondents No.12-14 and another individual.
One Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) was later promoted to the post of Supervisor on 01.02.2021 in the Level 8 of Pay Matrix of the 7th CPC, and after that two Senior Accountants were promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) after vacancy arose of another sanctioned post in the Level 7 of Pay Matrix of the 7th CPC.
This was done according to the qualified seniority/panel list of the first batch exam held on 19.12.2020.
The respondents No.1-14, who had become Assistant Supervisors, were eligible to get promotion to the post of Supervisor as per norms of having minimum 7 years of service as Senior Accountant plus Assistant Supervisor, but they were not given promotion due to non-availability of sanctioned posts.
They are – respondents No.1 to 12 who became eligible on 01.01.2021, respondent No.13 who became eligible on 01.07.2021, and respondent No.14 who became eligible on 01.09.2021.
The impugned Circular dt.15.02.2021:
On 15.02.2021, the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India issued the impugned Circular prescribing the norms for promotion to the post of Assistant Supervisor/Supervisor with effect from 01.01.2021.
An important feature of the Circular dt.15.02.2021 was grant of a one-time relaxation for the panel year 2021 permitting Senior Accountants, who had not previously undergone training or examination, to be provisionally promoted as Assistant Supervisors, subject to their successful completion of the mandated training and evaluation test within two attempts.
Thus the norm for promotion i.e., promotion only after undergoing the training first and then passing the Training Evaluation Examination, was changed to giving promotion first as Assistant Supervisor and subsequently undergoing the training and passing the examination.
On the basis of this important change of norm, by order dt.22.03.2021, 66 Senior Accountants were provisionally promoted as Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) on notional basis from 01.01.2021, subject to passing of training and exam requisites. It was mentioned that if an official fails to qualify the training during the panel year 2021, he will be reverted back as Senior Accountant.
After training was given to them, the Training Evaluation Exam was held for them on 07.07.2021.
Among these Senior Accountants, 59 cleared the evaluation held on 07.07.2021, and by order dt.03.08.2021, 20 such Assistant Supervisors (Accounts) were promoted to Supervisors (Accounts) notionally with effect from 01.01.2021. These were respondents No.15-35.
The OA No.041/00260/2021 filed by respondents No.1-14:
Respondents No.1 to 14 filed the OA. No.041/00260/2021 contending that this action resulted in their supersession by the second batch, whose promotions as Assistant Supervisors itself was provisional (but were granted under relaxation in undergoing training and passing of the Training Evaluation Examination), and was subsequent in point of time to their (promotion of respondents No.1-14) own regular promotion.
The representation made on 12.03.2021 by respondents No.1 to 14, objecting to the disturbance of their seniority and promotional prospects, was not accepted by the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General, who, by order dt.25.05.2021, maintained that inter se seniority among Assistant Supervisors would be governed by their seniority in the feeder cadre of Senior Accountants.
Therefore respondents No.1 to 14 approached the Tribunal, and filed the OA also challenging the said decision dt.25.05.2021 as well as the Circular dt.15.02.2021.
The first round – decision of Tribunal dt.28.03.2023:
The OA was initially allowed on 28.03.2023 by the Tribunal, which held that promotion to the post of Supervisor to the second batch candidates ignoring the first batch candidates was bad in law. It quashed and set aside the impugned proceeding dt.25.05.2021. The petitioners were directed to take proper steps with regard to promotion of the respondents No.1 to 14 (the first batch) to the post of Supervisor (Accounts) vis-à-vis the respondents No.15-35 (the second batch), as the former had admittedly been promoted to the post of Supervisor on regular basis on dates earlier to the latter, and also to fix their seniority from the date of their regular promotion in the post of Assistant Supervisor with consequential benefits.
WP(C)(CAT) No.01/2023:
The petitioners questioned the said Order dt.28.03.2023 passed in the OA by filing WP(C)(CAT) No.01/2023.
The High Court set aside the Order dt.28.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal on 22.01.2024 on the ground that affected persons (respondents No.15-35 herein) were not impleaded in the OA. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the Original Application afresh after impleading the affected parties, who were promoted as Supervisor vide Order dt.03.08.2021.
After remand, the respondents No.15 to 35 were impleaded, but they did not file any Counter Affidavit, nor did they contest the OA in spite of notice being served on them.
The stand taken by respondents No.1 to 14 in the OA:
Respondents No.1 to 14 contended in the OA that once regular promotion is made after due procedure, seniority in the promoted post cannot be disturbed by subsequent provisional appointments, especially when the latter are made by way of creation of supernumerary posts, and under a conditional, one-time relaxation.
They contended that neither Rule nor precedent permits reordering of seniority to the disadvantage of earlier regular promotees.
The petitioners on the other hand contended that the newly promoted Supervisors from the second batch (respondents No.15-35), were senior to respondents No.1 to 14 in the feeder cadre of Assistant Supervisors, and their promotions were regularised in the larger administrative interest by a one-time relaxation scheme.
According to them, such relaxations were permissible and essential in aligning cadre position within the norms of restructuring.
The impugned Order dt.21.11.2025 of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, in the impugned Order dt.21.11.2025, rejected the plea of the petitioners and accepted the plea of respondents No.1 to 14.
The Tribunal held that entry of respondents No.1 to 14 into the cadre of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) was regular, pursuant to fulfillment of all procedural requirements, and it had happened prior to the relaxation Circular dt.15.02.2021.
It also held that the respondents No.15 to 35 (second batch officers) were only promoted provisionally pending fulfilment of necessary conditions, and their appointments were not regularized and would get regularized only after training and evaluation.
The Tribunal further held that substantive seniority in a promotional cadre accrues from the date of regular promotion, and it cannot be fixed by reference to seniority in the feeder cadre, especially when promotions are made under separate provisions or relaxation.
It held that there is no administrative Order including the Circular dt.15.02.2021 authorizing the reordering of seniority in derogation of this established principle.
It therefore refused to accept the petitioners’ contention that seniority in the feeder cadre can override regular timely promotion, more so when the promotions of the second batch were provisional, and made subject to further compliance.
It further held that the act of promoting respondents No.15 to 35, who had only been provisionally promoted to the post of Supervisors to the prejudice of their regular first batch promotes (respondents No.1-14), is arbitrary and unsustainable.
It therefore set aside the Order dt.25.05.2021, and directed the petitioners to undertake a fresh exercise to determine seniority and consider promotion to the post of Supervisor (Accounts) strictly in accordance with the date of regular promotion to Assistant Supervisor (Accounts).
It also directed the respondents No.1 to 14 to be accorded all consequential benefits as per law, and directed completion of the same within six months.
Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners.
Submission of counsel for petitioners:
Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand taken before the Tribunal that seniority in the promoted grade of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) follows seniority in the feeder grade of Senior Accountant, once an officer is found fit by the DPC.
According to the petitioners, the feeder post is Senior Accountant to the post of Assistant Supervisor; and the seniority in the post of Senior Accountant must be followed when persons are promoted to the post of Supervisor from the post of Assistant Supervisor.
Consideration by the Court:
The petitioners do not dispute that respondents No.1 to 14 had appeared for the Training Evaluation Examination for promotion as Assistant Supervisor on 19.12.2020, and were declared on 29.12.2020 as having passed the said examination, and on 31.12.2020 and on 20.01.2021 they were promoted as Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) from the post of Senior Accountants.
It is also not in dispute that after the petitioners had issued the Circular dt.15.02.2021 (granting relaxation of 7 years of combined regular service in the post of Senior Auditor/Senior Accountant and Assistant Supervisor for eligibility for promotion to the post of Supervisor, restricting it only for the panel years 2021 and 2022 and also of undergoing training and passing in the Training Evaluation Examination) , only provisional promotion was granted on 22.03.2021 to respondents No.15 to 35 from the post of Senior Accountant to the post of Assistant Supervisor, and it was not a regular promotion.
Notwithstanding the above facts, yet, on 03.08.2021, respondents No.15 to 35 were given regular promotion by petitioners from the post of Assistant Supervisor to the post of Supervisor (Accounts), and the said proceeding also indicated that their provisional promotion as Supervisor (Accounts) is effective from 01.01.2021 notionally.
The question is;
“whether the respondents No.15-35 can be treated as senior in the cadre of Assistant Supervisor to respondents No.1-14;
and whether the former can be further promoted as Supervisors on 03.08.2021 overlooking the claim of respondents No.1-14, who had been promoted As Assistant Supervisors earlier than them?”
When the respondents No.1 to 14 had already been regularly promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor (Accounts) on 31.12.2020 and on 20.01.2021 itself from the post of Senior Accountant, their seniority ought to be counted from such date of regular promotion.
But for the relaxation granted on 15.02.2021, the respondents No.15 to 35 would not have been even eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Supervisor, and when they were promoted as Assistant Supervisor after passing the Training Evaluation Examination on 07.07.2021, their seniority can only be counted in the promoted post from the date they got the said regular promotion. Consequently they could have not been considered for promotion as Supervisor overlooking the respondents No.1-14.
In Mervyn Continho & Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Others1, the Supreme Court held that where there is only one source of recruitment, the normal Rule will apply, namely, that a person promoted to a higher grade gets his seniority in that grade according to the date of promotion; and it is continuous appointment in the higher grade which determines seniority for the source of recruitment is one. There is no question in such a case of reflecting in the higher grade the seniority of the grade from which promotion is made to the higher grade.
“8.The source of recruitment of Principal Appraisers is one, namely, from the grade of Appraisers. There is therefore no question of any quota being reserved from two sources in their cases. The rotational system cannot therefore apply when there is only one source of recruitment and not two sources of recruitment. In a case therefore where there is only one source of recruitment, the normal Rule will apply, namely, that a person promoted to a higher grade gets his seniority in that grade according to the date of promotion subject always to his being found fit and being confirmed in the higher grade after the period of probation is over. In such a case it is continuous appointment in the higher grade which determines seniority for the source of recruitment is one. There is no question in such a case of reflecting in the higher grade the seniority of the grade from which promotion is made to the higher grade. Insofar therefore as the respondent is doing what it calls restoration of seniority of direct recruits in Appraisers‟ grade when they are promoted to the Principal Appraisers‟ grade, it is clearly denying equality of opportunity to Appraisers which is the only source of recruitment to the Principal Appraisers‟ grade. There is only one source from which the Principal Appraisers are drawn, namely, Appraisers, the promotion being by selection and five years‟ experience as Appraiser is the minimum qualification. Subject to the above all Appraisers selected for the post of Principal Appraisers must be treated equally. That means they will rank in seniority from the date of their continuous acting in the Principal Appraisers‟ grade subject of course to the right of the Government to revert any of them who have not been found fit during the period of probation. But if they are found fit after the period of probation they rank in seniority from the date they have acted continuously as Principal Appraisers whether they are promotees or direct recruits. The present method by which the respondent puts a direct recruit from the grade of Appraiser, though he is promoted later, above a promotee who is promoted to the grade of Principal Appraiser on an earlier date clearly denies equality of opportunity where the grade of Principal Appraiser has only one source of recruitment, namely, from the grade of Appraisers. In such a case the seniority in the grade of Principal Appraisers must be determined according to the date of continuous appointment in that grade irrespective of whether the person promoted to that grade from the Appraisers‟ grade is a direct recruit or a promotee. This will as we have already said be subject to the Government‟s right to revert any one promoted as a Principal Appraiser if he is not found fit for the post during the period of probation. The petition therefore will have to be allowed with respect to the method by which seniority is fixed in the grade of Principal Appraisers. That method denies equality of opportunity of employment to the Appraisers who are the only source of recruitment to the grade of Principal Appraisers. What the impugned method seeks to do is to introduce a kind of reservation in respect of the two categories of Appraisers from which the promotions are made, and that cannot be done when the source of promotion is one.” (emphasis supplied)
53. Again in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Somdutt Uppal & Another2, this was reiterated and it was held that seniority in feeder cadre is irrelevant when the promotions are made to the higher post on different dates. Unless the candidates pass the exam on the same date, the seniority in feeder category is irrelevant. It was explained as under:
“1.…. The promotion to the post of the Superintendent is governed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for Ministerial Services of the Board, 1972 (the „1972 Regulations‟) which are made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 79(c) read with Section 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and which came into force w.e.f. July 1, 1972. Rule 8 of the 1972 Regulations provides that the method of recruitment to the posts under the Board shall be by written or oral test or by both, or by promotion. It further states that the method of recruitment, promotion, minimum qualifications, period of probation etc. for each of the Board‟s services shall be as set forth in Appendices A & B of the 1972 Regulations. Clause 10 of Appendix A lays down the method of selection to the post of Superintendent. It states that at Superintendent level, there would be a Subordinate Accounts Service. The eligibility for this Service shall be passing of SAS examination. All UDCs having four years‟ service shall be eligible for appearing in the examination in addition to Assistants/Internal Auditors/Head Clerks. For the initial constitution, however, Superintendents having three years‟ service on the Accounts side may also be considered. The said Clause 10, therefore, makes it clear that to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, two conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that the employee concerned must have put in a minimum of four years‟ service as UDC/Assistant/Internal Auditor/Head Clerk at the time of appearing for the examination, and the second is that he must pass the examination. It is obvious that no employee can be promoted to the post of Superintendent unless he satisfies the two conditions. Hence, the seniority of an employee in the cadre of Superintendents would depend upon the date on which he enters that cadre after satisfying the two conditions. The seniority in the lower feeding cadre of UDC etc. is irrelevant for considering the seniority in the cadre of Superintendents except when both the eligible employees pass the examination on the same date.”
(emphasis supplied)
Admittedly, the respondents No.1 to 14 had passed the Training Evaluation Examination on 19.12.2020 and they had been promoted as Assistant Supervisors on 31.12.2020 and on 20.01.2021.
Only on 22.03.2021, after applying the Circular dt.15.02.2021, the respondents No.15-35 had been provisionally promoted as Assistant Supervisors. They then passed the examination on 07.07.2021. Only thereafter they would be regularly promoted as Assistant Supervisors.
Consequently, the respondents No.1-14 have to be treated as seniors in the cadre of Assistant Supervisors to respondents No.15-35 as the latter have passed the examination much later.
That apart, the respondents No.15-35 were given seniority in the cadre of Assistant Supervisors from 01.01.2021 as per the order dt.22.03.2021, which states that they were provisionally promoted to that cadre on 01.01.2021 from the post of Senior Accountants.
This is impermissible because the respondents No.1-14 had been promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor on 31.12.2021 and on 20.01.2021, they would be senior to respondents No.15-35 in that cadre. So the petitioners ought not to have promoted the respondents No.15-35 as Supervisors overlooking the claim of respondents No.1-14.
In P. Sudhakar Rao & Others v. U. Govinda Rao & Others , it was held that seniority amongst members of the same grade must be counted from the date of their initial entry into the grade. So the respondents No.15-35 cannot be treated as senior to respondents No.1-14.
The seniority in the feeder cadre of Senior Accountant, would have no relevance because the respondents No.15 to 35 had been unwilling to undergo the Training Evaluation Examination at the time the respondents No.1-14 had agreed for it, but they were made eligible for promotion only because of the relaxation granted on 15.02.2021. They were given opportunity to pass the examination after their promotion as Assistant Supervisor for the panel year 2021, though as per the applicable Rule, they were supposed to first pass the said examination, and then only be entitled for promotion as Assistant Supervisor. But for the relaxation, respondents No.15 to 35 would never have become Assistant Supervisors at all.
Persons like respondents No.1 to 14, who had successfully completed the training, and had passed out in the first batch Evaluation Examination held on 19.12.2020 should have been considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor first, and only thereafter respondents No.15 to 35 ought to have been considered for promotion as Assistant Supervisors, as they appeared only in the second batch examination on 07.07.2021, and respondents No.15 to 35 cannot be allowed to supersede respondents No.1 to 14 in the matter of promotion to the post of Supervisor.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the decision taken by petitioners in proceeding dt.25.05.2021 that the inter-se seniority in the cadre of Assistant Supervisor would be same as in the feeder cadre of Senior Accountant is arbitrary, illegal and violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India and the same was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Consequently the promotion of respondents No.15-35 to the post of Supervisor (Accounts) made on 03.08.2021 also cannot be sustained, and it is set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the petitioners are directed to implement the direction of the Tribunal contained in para 17 of its order within 2 months.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
PULAK BANIK
Footnotes
- 1.AIR 1967 SC 52
- 2.1993 Supp (2) SCC 415
- 3.(2013) 8 SCC 693