TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent year(s), the persons appointed would get seniority of the year in which they are appointed "on substantive basis". OM dated 3.3.2008, would only apply prospectively - Held that:- The OM dated 3.3.2008 is in the nature of a "clarification". Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. Therefore it is not possible to accept that the OM dated 3.3.2008, would only apply prospectively. The OM dated 3.3.2008 which is only a "clarification" of the earlier OM dated 3.7.1986, would relate back to the original instrument, namely, the OM dated 3.7.1986. Would the OM dated 3.3.2008 supersede the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and/or 3.7.1986? And, would the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 negate the OM dated 3.3.2008, to the extent that the same is repugnant to the earlier OMs (dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986)? - Held that:- The OM dated 7.2.1986 is in the nature of an amendment/modification. The Department of Personnel and Training consciously "amended" the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959, by the later OM dated 7.2.1986. The said amendment was consciously carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be non est to the extent that the same is in derogation of the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. Having so concluded, it is natural to record, that as the position presently stands, the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 would have an overriding effect over the OM dated 3.3.2008 (to the extent of conflict between them). And the OM dated 3.3.2008 has to be ignored/omitted to the extent that the same is in derogation of the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 & is not relevant for the determination of the present controversy. Seniority for direct recruits could not be determined with reference to a date preceding the date of their recruitment. The seniority rule applied in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case [1998 (4) TMI 498 - SUPREME COURT] that seniority would be determined with reference to the date of recruitment, date of first appointment. One finds attracted to the observations recorded in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case wherein it was observed, "when the language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, nor irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute, then it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the CAT, Ahmedabad ) in R.C. Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (OA No. 92 of 2003). The said Original Application had been filed by direct recruits. Another Original Application, on the same subject matter, being OA No. 123 of 2003 (N.R. Parmar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) was filed by promotees. Both the OA No. 92 of 2003 and OA No. 123 of 2003 were decided by a common order dated 12.1.2004. In its determination the CAT, Ahmedabad held, that seniority of direct recruits would have to be determined with reference to the date of their actual appointment. The implicit effect of the aforesaid determination was, that the date of arising of the direct recruit vacancies, or the date of initiation of the process of recruitment, or the date when the Staff Selection Commission had made recommendations for the filling up direct recruit vacancies, were inconsequential for determination of seniority of direct recruits. 3. The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12.1.2004 was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma and Ors.) and Civil Appeal No. 7516 of 2005 (Virender Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), the said writ petitions were transferred to be heard with the Civil Appeals referred to hereinabove. On transfer to this Court, the aforesaid writ petitions were re-numbered as Transferred Case (C) No. 91 of 2006 (Pritpal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). 7. OA No. 270 of 2002 (R.K. Bothra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 271 of 2002 (G.R. Chalana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 275 of 2002 (Bhanwar Lal Soni and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 293 of 2002 (Ranjeet Singh Rathore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), were filed by promotee Income Tax Inspectors before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the CAT, Jodhpur ), to assail the seniority-list wherein direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, though appointed later, were placed higher in the seniority-list, i.e., above promotee Income Tax Inspectors, merely because they occupied vacancies of earlier years. The CAT, Jodhpur allowed the claim of the promotee Income Tax Inspectors by a common order dated 8.9.2003. The order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent No. 6) was similarly promoted as Income Tax Inspector. Thereafter on 14.12.1993 yet another promotion (of Respondent No. 9) was ordered, in the same manner. Likewise, Respondent No. 12 was promoted as Income Tax Inspector on 8.9.1995. It is essential to emphasize, that all these promotions were ordered against promotee vacancies, identified for the year 1993-94. 11. On the receipt of a requisition pertaining to the post of Income Tax Inspectors from the Income Tax Department, the SSC issued advertisements in May/June, 1993, inviting applications for appointment by way of direct recruitment, against vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors of the year 1993-94. To fill up these vacancies, the SSC held the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income Tax Examination, 1993. All the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006 Responded to the aforesaid advertisement. The said Petitioners, were in the first instance, subjected to a written test conducted by the SSC in December, 1993. Thereafter, those who qualified the written examination, were invited for an interview/viva-voce. All the Petitioners appeared for the viva-voce test conducted in October 1994. On 21/28.1.1995 the SSC declared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and suitable for promotion by the review DPC then on the basis of the said seniority list, the applicants shall be granted promotion from the date their juniors got promotion. The applicants should get seniority over the juniors in case they are found suitable for promotion. However, the applicants will not be entitled to any monetary benefits. In such a case, the applicants' pay may be fixed notionally from the dates of their deemed retrospective promotion. However, the applicants will not be entitled to any actual arrears of monetary benefits till the date of actual order of promotion. The actual monetary benefits are prospective, only from the date of order of promotion and consequent date of assuming charge. 2. In the circumstances of the case, the official Respondents are granted three months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to comply with these directions. 3. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. On 10.9.1999 a clarificatory order was passed by the CAT, Principal Bench. A relevant extract, of the aforesaid clarificatory order, is being reproduced hereunder: 2. But, on reconsideration and on second though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dt.8.9.1999. 4. In the result, the M.A. No. 1938/99 is disposed of subject to above observations. No order as to costs. 13. Some direct recruits again approached the CAT, Principal Bench by filing Original Application No. 2307 of 1999 (Sanjeev Mahajan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) alleging, that while drawing the seniority list dated 8.2.1999, the Department of Income Tax had not applied the quota and rota principle. On 23.2.2000, the CAT, Principal Bench disposed of OA No. 2307 of 1999, and other connected original applications (Krishan Kanahiya and Ors. v. Union of India, OA No. 676 of 1999; H.P.S. Kharab and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 387 of 1999; Muneesh Rajani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 964 of 1999) by a common order. In paragraph 7 of its order the CAT, Principal Bench, narrated the issues which came up for its determination as under: 7. The short question which is posed for our consideration is as to what is the precise date on which direct recruits can be considered for seniority vis-`-vis the promotees. Whether it is (i) the date on which the vacancies have arisen; (ii) the date when the same have been notified b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for the year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed on en bloc below the last promotee for direct recruit (as the case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for the year. The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment, remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987. The seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to recast the seniority list on the basis of directions contained in this order. The present order will also apply to seniority list of UDCs which is the subject matter of OA No. 676/1999. 11. All the OAs stand disposed of on the above lines. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 14. Direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, assailed the interpretation placed by the CAT, Principal Bench, on the office memorandum dated 7.2.1986 (in its order dated 23.2.2000), by filing a number of writ petitions (Civil Writ Petition No. 460 of 2000, Sanjiv Mahajan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.; Civil Writ Petition No. 670 of 2002, Pankaj Saxena v. Union of India and Ors.; Civil Writ Petition No. 7356 of 2000, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sanjiv Mahajan and Ors.; Civil Writ Petition No. 5549 of 2001, Kamal Khanna and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) before the Delhi High Court. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the Delhi High Court by a common order dated 25.9.2002, whereby, the order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, was set aside with the following observations: 23. Having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... q).... The applicants before the CAT, Principal Bench were direct recruits. They were satisfied with the latest position adopted by the official Respondents before the CAT, Principal Bench through the additional affidavit dated 12.3.2003. They therefore, chose not to press their applications any further. The CAT, Principal Bench passed the following order on 26.4.2003: Learned Counsel for the applicants, keeping in view the amended reply dated 12.3.2003, does not press the present application. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed as withdrawn. 16. The Income Tax Department thereupon, issued another seniority list of Income Tax Inspectors, dated 17.7.2003, by following the quota and rota principle prescribed in the office memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. The aforesaid seniority-list was assailed by promotee Income Tax Inspectors before the CAT, Principal Bench, through OA No. 2068 of 2003 (C.P.S. Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 2107 of 2003 (Mahender Pratap and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 124 of 2004 (S.K. Puri-II and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.). The CAT, Principal Bench, by a common order dated 22.9.2004 allowed the claim pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promotees and direct recruits was to be read into the seniority rule. The OM also provided for a definite rotation of seniority points ( rota ) between promotees and direct recruits. The rotation provided for was founded on the concept of rotation of quotas between promotees and direct recruits. It is therefore apparent, that under the OM dated 22.11.1959 inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits was based on the quota and rota principle. The same has been meaningfully described as rotation of quotas in some of these instruments. 19. The aforesaid prescription of the manner of determining inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, determined through the OM dated 22.11.1959, was modified by an office memorandum dated 7.2.1986, issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as, the OM dated 7.2.1986 ). The modification introduced through the OM dated 7.2.1986 was to redress a situation wherein, vacancies of one of the sources were kept (or remained) unfilled during the process of selection, and the unfilled vacancies, had to be filled up through later examinations or selections. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at present is that the slots meant for direct recruits or promotees, which could not be filled up, were left vacant, and when direct recruits or promotees became available through later examinations or selections, such persons occupied the vacant slots , thereby became senior to persons who were already working in the grade on regular basis. In some cases, where there was short-fall in direct recruitment in two or more consecutive years, this resulted in direct recruits of later years taking seniority over some of the promotees with fairly long years of regular service already to their credit. This matter had also come up for consideration in various Court Cases both before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and in several cases the relevant judgment had brought out the inappropriateness of direct recruits of later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. 3. This matter, which was also discussed in the National Council has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time and it has been decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 14. D3 7. P4 15. P4 8. P5 16. D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7 4. In order to help the appointing authorities in determining the number of vacancies to be filled during a year under each of the methods of recruitment prescribed, a Vacancy Register giving a running account of the vacancies arising and being filled from year to year may be maintained in the proforma enclosed. 5. With a view to curbing any tendency of underreporting/suppressing the vacancies to be notified to the concerned authorities for direct recruitment, it is clarified that promotees will be treated as regular only to the extent to which direct recruitment vacancies are reported to the recruiting authorities on the basis of the quotas prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. Excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, there has been an earlier examination or selection, and is then followed by a later examination or selection. It is implicit, that in the earlier examination or selection there was a shortfall, in as much as, the available vacancies for the concerned recruitment year could not all be filled up, whereupon, further examination(s) or selection(s) had to be conducted to make up for the shortfall. In the instant situation, the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959 contemplated/provided, that slots allotted to a prescribed source of recruitment which remained vacant, would be filled up only from the source for which the vacancy was reserved, irrespective of the fact that a candidate from the source in question became available in the next process of examination or selection, or even thereafter. In other words the rotation of quotas principle was given effect to in letter and spirit under the OM dated 22.11.1959, without any scope of relaxation. (b) The position expressed in the sub-paragraph (a) above, was sought to be modified by the OM dated 7.2.1986, by providing in paragraph 3 thereof, that the earlier ...principle of rotation of quotas would still be followed for determining the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng direct recruitment vacancies of the next year.... . It is therefore apparent, that seniority of carried forward vacancies would be determined with reference to vacancies of the recruitment year wherein their selection was made, i.e., for which the later examination or selection was conducted. (e) The OM dated 7.2.1986 formulated the stratagem to be followed, where adequate number of vacancies in a recruitment year could not be filled up, through the examination or selection conducted therefor. The OM provided, ...to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is (was) possible to determine the seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available.... . (f) Paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 further postulated, that the modification contemplated therein would be applied prospectively, and that, ...the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years,...over promotees who are (were) already in position, would be dispensed with.... . It is there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules. 2. 4.2 If adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year , the additional, direct recruits se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment would be treated only as ad-hoc promotees. (Emphasis is ours) The following conclusions have been drawn by us from the O.M. dated 3.7.1986: (a) If adequate number of direct recruits (or promotees) do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority, would stop after the available direct recruits and promotees are assigned their slots for the concerned recruitment year. (b) To the extent direct recruits were not available for the concerned recruitment year, the promotees would be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it was possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas. and vice versa. (c) The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies for a recruitment year, would be carried forward to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years, where necessary). and vice versa. In this behalf, it is necessary to understand two distinct phrases used in the OM dated 3.7.1986. Firstly, the phrase in that year which connotes the recruitment year for which specific vacancies are earmarked. and secondly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seniority list. In other words, only where appointing authority has not been able to fill up the post inspite of best efforts with reference to the requisition for the particular recruitment year in question, the instructions contained in O.M. dated 07.02.1986 will come into operation as will be clear from para 5 thereof. For example, if the quota in the Rrs and DR and promotee is fifty-fifty and if the UPSC has recommended only 2 DRs against the three vacancies of a particular recruitment year, say 1987 for which requisition was sent to them in 1987 and even if both the DRs had joined in 1988 the inter-se seniority of DRs and promotees may be fixed in the ratio of 1:1 upto the number of DRs available i.e. the first four places in the seniority list will be assigned alternatively to DR and promotee, the 5th in the seniority list which would have normally gone to DR will not go to the promotee because of the non-availability of DR and the 6th will in any case go to promotee. But for the instructions contained in our O.M. dated 07.02.1986, the 5th place would have been kept reserved for the DR as and when it is actually filled by DR, even if it takes a few years. However, after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cies had arisen) itself. As such, the date of joining would not be a relevant factor for determining seniority of direct recruits. It would suffice if action has been initiated for direct recruit vacancies, within the recruitment year in which the vacancies had become available. This is so, because delay in administrative action, it was felt, could not deprive an individual of his due seniority. As such, initiation of action for recruitment within the recruitment year would be sufficient to assign seniority to the concerned appointees in terms of the rotation of quotas principle, so as to arrange them with other appointees (from the alternative source), for vacancies of the same recruitment year. 23. Following the ON dated 20.12.1999, the Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment (D) Section, examined the issue in yet another Office Note dated 2.2.2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ON dated 2.2.2000 ). Just like the earlier ON dated 20.12.1999, the instant ON dated 2.2.2000 also has no legal sanction, and as such, is not enforceable in law. But just like the earlier office note, the instant ON dated 2.2.2000 would also be relevant in determining the logic and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also. In any case, our comments are already contained in our earlier note as well as this note. It is for the Administrative Ministry/Department to incorporate them suitably in the counter reply. Hence, the counter reply on Pp.159-175/Cor. May be suitably modified in the light of our advice on Pp.9-10/ante as already advised at 'X' on p.10/ante and this note. In future, the Department of Revenue, if they want our advice, refer such cases well in time (instead of making such reference at the eleventh hour) to enable us to consider the matter in its proper perspective without any time constraint. Estt.(B) may please see for comments on points (2) and (3) on Pp.19-20/ante before the file is returned to Department of Revenue. Sd/- (Under secretary) 2.2.2000. The logic and process of reasoning emerging from the ON dated 2.2.2000, as is apparent to us, is being analysed below: (a) If the process of recruitment has been initiated during the recruitment year (in which the vacancies have arisen) itself, even if the examination for the said recruitment is held in a subsequent year, and the result is declared in a year later (than the one in which the examination was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 3.7.1986, as well as, in the ONs dated 20.12.1999 and 2.2.2000. In the aforesaid letter dated 11.5.2004 it was sought to be clarified , that the seniority of direct recruits vis-`-vis promotees, would be determined with reference to the year in which the direct recruits are appointed. and further, that direct recruits cannot claim seniority with reference to the year in which the vacancies against which they are appointed had arisen. In our considered view reliance on the letter dated 11.5.2004, for the determination of the present controversy, is liable to outright rejection. This is so because, the letter dated 11.5.2004 has been styled as a clarification (see heading in right hand column). One of the essential ingredients of a clarification is, that it clarifies an unclear, doubtful, inexplicit or ambiguous aspect of an instrument. A clarification cannot be in conflict with the instrument sought to be clarified. The letter dated 11.5.2004 breaches both the essential ingredients of a clarification referred to above. That apart, the letter dated 11.5.2004 is liable to be ignored in view of two subsequent letters of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quested to take necessary action in the matter of fixation of seniority of DRs Promotee Inspectors accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary (V L) A perusal of the letter dated 8.9.2004 reveals, that the clarification given in the letter dated 11.5.2004, would be ignored in favour of the position adopted in Sanjeev Mahajan's case, in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training. It would be relevant to notice, that the position adopted in Sanjeev Mahajan's case, referred to in the letter dated 8.9.2004 was, that seniority of direct recruits would be reckoned with reference to the date of initiation of the process of recruitment in their case. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the letter dated 11.5.2004 is bound to be disregarded and excluded from consideration not only because it does not satisfy the legal parameters of a clarification , but also because, it is deemed to have been superseded by the subsequent letters dated 27.7.2004 and 8.9.2004. 25. Reference necessarily needs to be made to yet another office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, dated 3.3.2008 (hereafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or an officer of the particular batch of promotees joins the post/service. 4. Cases of seniority already decided with reference to any other interpretation of the term 'available' as contained in O.M. dated 3.7.1986 need not be reopened. 5. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- Director (Estt. I) (Emphasis is ours) The following conclusions, in our view, can be drawn from the OM dated 3.3.2008: (a) The OM dated 3.3.2008 is in the nature of a clarification , to the earlier consolidated instructions on seniority, contained in the OM dated 3.7.1986 (referred to and analysed, in paragraph 21 above). (b) The term available used in para 2.4.2 in the OM dated 3.7.1986 has been clarified to mean, both in case of direct recruits as well as promotees, for the purpose of fixation of seniority, would be the actual year of appointment ...after the declaration of the result/selection, i.e., after the conclusion of the selection process, and after the ...completion of the pre-appointment formalities.... (medical fitness, police verification, etc.). (c) As per the OM dated 3.7.1986, when appointments are made against unfilled vacancies in subsequent year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 100-point roster and Shri G.S. Samra against point No. 9 in the said roster. 9. From a perusal of the letter dated April 8, 1980, we find that it gives clarifications on certain doubts that had been created by some Departments in the matter of implementation of the instructions contained in the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. Since the said letter dated April 8, 1980 is only clarificatory in nature, there is no question of its having an operation independent of the instructions contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 and the clarifications contained in the letter dated April 8, 1980 have to be read as a part of the instructions contained in the earlier letter dated May 5, 1975. In this context it may be stated that according to the principles of statutory construction a statute which is explanatory or clarificatory of the earlier enactment is usually held to be retrospective. (See: Craies on Statute Law, 7th Ed., p.58). It must, therefore, be held that all appointments against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes made after May 5, 1975 (after May 14, 1977 in so far as the Service is concerned), have to be made in accordance with the instructions as contained in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services and posts under the Central Government. For facility of reference, the important orders on the subject have been consolidated in this office memorandum. The number and date of the original communication has been quoted in the margin so that the users may refer to it to understand fully the context in which the order in question was issued . (Emphasis is ours) It is therefore clear, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 is neither in the nature of an amendment nor in the nature of a modification . Since the OM dated 3.3.2008, is a mere consolidation or compilation of earlier instructions on the subject of seniority, it is not prudent to draw any inferences therefrom which could not be drawn from the earlier instruction/office memoranda being consolidated or compiled therein, or which is contrary thereto. 28. It is relevant to notice, that there is a marginal note against paragraph 2.4.2 in the OM dated 3.7.1986. The aforesaid marginal note is being extracted hereunder: DOPT No. 35014/2/80-Estt(D) dt.7.2.86. Therefore, paragraph 2.4.2 must be deemed to have been recorded in the consolidating OM, on the basis of the OM dated 7.2.1986. The instant assertion has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in paragraph 20 (with reference to the OM dated 7.2.1986) and paragraph 21 (with reference to OM dated 3.7.1986) on the one hand, as against, the conclusions drawn in paragraph 26 (with reference to OM dated 3.3.2008) on the other, would lead to inevitable conclusion, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 clearly propounds, a manner of determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, by a method which is indisputably in conflict with the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. Ofcourse, it was possible for the Department of Personnel and Training to amend or modify the earlier office memoranda, in the same manner as the OM dated 7.2.1986 had modified/amended the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959. A perusal of the OM dated 3.3.2008, however reveals, that it was not the intention of the Department of Personnel and Training to alter the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, as had been expressed in the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. The intention was only to clarify the earlier OM dated 3.7.1986 (which would implicitly include the OM dated 7.2.1986). The OM dated 3.3.2008 has clearly breached the parameters and the ingredients of a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91. The controversy in Pawan Pratap Singh's case (supra) was conspicuously different from the controversy in hand. In view of the fact that the seniority rules, as also the factual matrix in the cases relied upon was substantially at variance with the relevant OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 (which are the subject of interpretation in so far as the present case is concerned), as also the fact s of the cases in hand, it is apparent, that the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel are inapplicable to determine the present controversy. 32. One finds attracted to the observations recorded in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case (supra) wherein it was observed, when the language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, nor irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute, then it is the duty of the court to give effect to the words used in the statute because the words declare the intention of the law making authority best . We are of the view that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the present controversy. We may add that the various ONs and letters i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
