B.S. MURTHY & ORS versus A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

B.S. MURTHY & ORS versus A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

Para 5 of the 1986 OM applies only to the contingency of deliberate under-reporting/suppression of direct recruit vacancies to the recruiting authority; where promotions were made within the statutory promotee quota and regular vacancies for promotees objectively existed (including where direct recruitment was banned), promotions are regular and seniority must be counted from the date of respective appointments; promotions cannot claim seniority prior to appointment; therefore there was no justification to invoke Para 5 in the present facts, the High Court was in error, CAT's order is restored and seniority lists must be redrawn accordingly.

Parties
Appellants: B.S. Murthy & Ors.; Respondents: A. Ravinder Singh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; CAT order restored
Legal Topics
Seniority, Recruitment Rules, Promotion, Interpretation of Office Memorandum, Quota Rotation and Bunching
Service Law Administrative Law Central Excise Seniority Recruitment Rules Promotion Interpretation of Office Memorandum Quota Rotation and Bunching

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.S. Murthy & Ors.

Appellants

A. Ravinder Singh & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 07.02.1986 apply so as to make promotions of promotees ad-hoc where indents for direct recruits to the SSC were not placed for the full quota; whether promotee seniority must be determined with reference to indented vacancies for direct recruits; whether seniority can be reckoned retrospectively prior to date of appointment

Ratio Decidendi

Para 5 of the 1986 OM applies only to the contingency of deliberate under-reporting/suppression of direct recruit vacancies to the recruiting authority; where promotions were made within the statutory promotee quota and regular vacancies for promotees objectively existed (including where direct recruitment was banned), promotions are regular and seniority must be counted from the date of respective appointments; promotions cannot claim seniority prior to appointment; therefore there was no justification to invoke Para 5 in the present facts, the High Court was in error, CAT's order is restored and seniority lists must be redrawn accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; CAT order restored

Orders

  • Set aside impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the Central Administrative Tribunal order.
  • Direction that no excess promotions took place for period 1983-1991 and that 25% of actual vacancies each year were for promotees; Para 5 of OM 1986 not invokable on these facts.