Holding

Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees for 1969‑1976 must be determined according to the rotation/ quota rule prescribed in the Government Order dated 22‑12‑1959, rendering the Tribunal’s direction to ignore it unlawful.

Summary

The Telecommunication Department filled Assistant Engineer vacancies between 1969 and 1976 by 50% direct recruitment and 50% promotion of Junior Engineers under draft rules approved later as statutory rules. After the promotions were regularised in 1978, a seniority list was drawn based on merit, which was challenged by some promotees who claimed seniority should be based on continuous service. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the list and ordered a fresh list without applying any quota or rota rule. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether, in the absence of statutory rules, seniority could be governed by the Government Order dated 22‑12‑1959 which prescribed a rotation of vacancies based on quota. The Court held that the inter‑se seniority must follow that quota/rota principle and that the Tribunal’s direction to ignore it was unlawful. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s order set aside.

Issues considered

How should inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees of Assistant Engineers for the period 1969‑1976 be determined?
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing a fresh seniority list without applying the quota/rota rule prescribed in the 1959 Government Order?
Can administrative instructions govern service conditions and seniority in the absence of statutory recruitment rules?

Subjects

service lawseniorityinter se seniorityrecruitmentpromotionquotarotaadministrative instructiontelecommunication departmentCentral Administrative Tribunaldraft rulesstatutory rules

Judgment

A ABRAHAM JACOB AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA

FEBRUARY 11, 1998

B [S. SAGHIR AHMED AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Service Law Inter se Seniority-Assistant Engineers in
Telecommunication Department-Direct recruitment till 1969-Set of rules
C framed-When the rules were in draft form Asst. Engineers cadre vacancies
filled-50% by direct recruit-And 50% by promotion from among Junior
Engineers-All these promotions on as hoc basis-Draft rules approved by
the Govt.-Ad hoc promotions regularized-Fresh seniority list on merit--
Challenged before CAT-Order of CAT to prepare fresh list without quota/
rota-On appeal Held: inter se seniority ofpromotees and direct recruits has
D to be on rotaUon of vacancies and on quota of vacancies reserved-
Government order of Ministry of Home affairs dated 22112159 applicable,
·before the statutory rules were framed.

Prior to 1969 Asst Engineers in the Telecommunication department
were recruited directly. In 1969, a set of rules was framed thereunder it was
E provided that 50 percent of the vacancies in the post of the Asst. engineer
will be filled up by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion frpm
11;mongst junior engineers. On 21st Feb. 1976 draft rules were approved by
the Government and became statutory rules. During the period when the
rules were in draft form, the vacancies in the post of Asst. engineers
continued to be filled both by direct recruitment as well as promotion on
F 50:50 basis by virtue of an administrative decision. All the promotions
during 1969-1976 were on ad hoc basis.

Departmental promotion committee in 1978 regularised all ad hoc
posts, screened all the promotes and drew fresh seniority list on the basis
G of merit. The promotees who were brought down in the merit list, challenged
the Government decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was claimed on the basis of "- ,
continuous service in the rank of Asst. Engineer. The Tribunal accepted the
claim of the promotees and passed an order quashing the seniority list and
directing the govt. to draw the fresh seniority list without importing any
H quota/rota rule for the period prior to 1976. The ~irect recruits were neither
780
ABRAHAM JACOB v. U.0.1 781
party not the question of int~r se seniority between the direct recruits and A
the promotees was under consideration.

In fact the seniority list of the Asst Engineers promoted and recruited
for the period 1969 to 1976 was drawn by the Govt on basis of administrative
decision, as contained in the draft rules and in accordance with clause (6)
of memorandum dated 22nd Dec. 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home B
Affairs.

For the period 1969-1976, when the rules were in draft form the inter
se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant
Engineers has to be determined in accordance with the above said Government
Order, which stipulates that the relative seniority shall be determined C
according to the rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and
promotees which shall be based on quota of vacancies reserved for direct
recruits and promotees respectively.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
D
HELD : 1. Inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in the
cadre of Assistant Engineers has to be determined according to the rotation
of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees which shall be based
on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruits and promotees
respectively. (784-G) E
2. The inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, could be
governed by administrative instructions and as per Clause (6) of the
Memorandum of Ministry of Home affairs DT. 22/12/1959, in the absence
of Statutory Rules, which were framed subsequently. (785-A)
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12386of1996
Etc.

From the Jugdment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, at Emakulam in Kerala, in O.A. No. 15of1995.
G
M.N. Krishnmani, Ramesh P. Bhatt, N.N. Goswami, Ms. Kumud L. Das,
;. S.B.Upadhyay, Harish Chander, S.Wasim A. Qadri, Praveen Swamp, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. Anubha Jain and K.M.K Nair for the
appearing parties.

The Jugdment of the Court was delivered by H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. \

A G.B. PATTANAIK, J. These three appeals are directed against the same
judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Erankulam Bench, one by the k "-
Union of India and the others by the affected employees who were the direct
recruit Assistant Engineers in the Telecommunication Wing of the Government
of India. The inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees
to the post of Assistant Engineer during the period 1969 till 1976 was the
B subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal, on an application being
filed by a promotee challenging the seniority list of Assistant Engineers dated \./

20th June, 1994 as well as the provisional seniority list of Executive Engineers
dated 25th November, 1994. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has
quashed the seniority list of Assistant Engineers and had directed to re-draw
c a fresh seniority list without importing any quota/rota rule for the period prior
to 9.9.1976.

Admittedly, the post of Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile Civil Wing
of Posts and Telegraphs Department now nomenclatured as Telecommunication
Department was being filled up only by direct recruitment. There was no
D statutory rule governing the service conditions of these Assistant Engineers.
In 1969, a set of rules was framed whereunder it was provided that the 50 per
cent of the vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer will be filled up by
direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion from amongst the Junior
Engineers. The draft rules thus framed in the year 1969 was ultimately approved
by the Government and became a statutory rule under Article 309 of the
E Constitution on 21st February, 1976. But even before the rules were finally
approved and became a statutory rule on 21st February, 1976 on being
approved by the competent authority the vacancies in the post of Assistant
Engineer continued to be filled up both by direct recruitment as well as by
promotion on 50:50 basis by virtue of an administrative decision. Thus the
F provisions in the draft rules by virtue of an administrative decision continued
T
to be applied in the matter of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer.
As the rules were in a draft stage, promotion of the Junior Engineers to the
post of Assistant Engineer was being made on ad hoc basis. After the rules 1:
were approved on 21st February, 19'i6 the ad hoc promotion was regularised
by order dated 20th of March, 1978 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. At the
G time of regularisation of the aforesaid promotees a departmental promotion
committee was constituted which committee screened the cases of all such
ad hoc promotees and then drew up the merit list for being regularised and
the seniority of such promotees inter se was drawn up on the basis of their
respective position in the merit list prepared for regularisation. The aforesaid
' -
H decision of the Government was challenged by some of promotees who were
ABRAHAM JACOB v. U.O.I [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 783

brought down in the merit list before the Central Administrative Tribunal, A
.I..
Ernakulam Bench, claiming thereunder that their continuous service in the
-.<,
rank of Assistant Engineer should be the basis for their seniority amongst the
promotee Assistant Engineers. The Tribunal accepted their claim. It may be
stated here, that in the aforesaid proceedings before the Central Administrative
· Tribunal the direct recruits between the period 1969 till 1976 were not parties
....; nor the question of inter se seniority between such direct recruits and the B
promotees was under consideration. The Government, however, drew up the
seniority list, in respect of those Assistant Engineers who were recruited
between 1969 till 1976 and those who were promoted from the post of Junior
Engineers between the said period on the basis of administrative decision, to
promote to the extent of 50 per cent as contained in the draft rule following c
the Government Memorandum dated 22nd December, 1959. The aforesaid
principle on the basis of which the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and
,; promotees between the period 1969 till 1976 was made, was challenged before
the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal
by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the recruitment rules
having been enforced only on 9.9.1976, the inter se seniority between the D
-(

direct recruits and promotees prior the said date cannot be determined by ,
following the quota/rota rule which is a part of the statutory recruitment rule.
The Tribunal further came to hold that since earlier it has been decided by
the Tribunal that these promotees will get their service counted from the date
of their ad hoc promotion and not from the date of their regularisation the E
seniority list has been drawn up on a wrong basis and as such cannot be
sustained. With the aforesaid conclusion the Tribunal having set aside the
seniority list and having directed to re-draw the same without importing any

- -.-
quota/rota rule for the period prior to 9.9.1976, these appeals have been
preferred.
F
- '
Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the direct
recruits and Mr. N.N. Goswami; learned senior counsel appearing for th<!
Union of India contended that the Tribunal committed gross error in issuing
the impugned direction inasmuch as the Junior Engineers could be promoted
to the extent to 50 per cent of the posts in the cadre of Assistant Engineer G
in enforcement of the provisions in draft rules and therefore for determination
'
;-
____,,._.- of their inter se seniority as between the direct recruits and the promotees for
the period in question, namely from 1969 till 1976, the Government Order dated
22.12.19 59 has to be followed. It was further contended that in fact the
Hyderabad, Bombay and Delhi Benches of the Tribunal have already taken
the view that the general principles for determination of seniority enunciated H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R.

A in the order of Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22.12.1959 should be followed
for drawing up the seniority list and it is only the Ernakulam Bench by the
impugned judgment had taken a contrary decision. Mr. K.M.K. Nair, learned
counsel appearing for the promotee - respondent on the other hand contended
that the respondent having rendered long years of service as Junior Engineer
B and having been promoted as an Assistant Engineer the continuous length
of service ·in the cadre of Assistant Engineer should be the basis for
determining the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees
and as such there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the Tnl>unal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears to us that
C the only question for consideration is on what principle the inter se seniority
between the direct recruits and promotee Assistant Engineers will have to be
determined for the period 1969 till 1976 i.e. the period from which 50 per cent
of the posts were filled up by promotion till the enforcement of the statutory
recruitment rules? It is undisputed that prior to 1969 no Junior Engineer was
being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. From l 969 after formulation
D of a set of draft rules promotion was being given to the Junior Engineers to
the post of Assistant Engineer in accordance with the provisions contained
in the draft rules even before such draft rules were approved by the
governmental authority and became a statutory rule, by virtue of an
administrative decision of the Government. It is too well settled that the
E service conditions of employes, in the absence of a statutory rule could be
governed by administrative instructions. There was, therefore, no illegality in
giving promotion to the Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer
because of the aforesaid administrative decision of the Government. It is also
conceded that in the statutory rules the principle of determination of inter se
seniority between the direct recruits and promotees has not been indicated.
F It is in this context the Government of India followed the general principles y
for determining the seniority enunciated in the order of Ministry of Home
Affairs dated 22.12.1959. Clause (6) of the aforesaid Memorandum which deals
with relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees stipulates that the
relative seniority shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies
between the direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quota
G of vacancies reserved for direct recruits and promotees respectively. Since the
statutory rule had not come into force and yet promotion could be given on ~ ...,.
the basis of the provisions contained in the draft rule by virtue of an
administrative order of the Government such promotees cannot claim a greater
advantage than the direct recruits having come into the cadre on the basis
H of the aforesaid draft rules. Further, the inter se seniority of such direct
ABRAHAM JACOB v. U.O.I [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 785

recruits and promotees has to be determined by taking recourse to the aforesaid A
office memorandum dated 22.12.1959 issued by the Government of India in the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Needless to mention that this principle has to be
invoked for determination of inter se seniority of the appointees both direct
recruits and promotees during the period 1969 till 9.9.1976 and in fact the
Government has drawn up the seniority list on following the said principle. B
In the aforesaid premises, the direction of the Tribunal in the impugned
judgment to re-draw the seniority list without importing any quota/rota rule
for the period prior to 9.9.1976 is unsustainable in law and we accordingly
quash the said direction. Necessarily, therefore, the inter se seniority of the
direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Assistant Engineers for the
period 1969 till 9.9.1976 has to be determined in accordance with the C
Government Order dated 22.12.1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
We, accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, EmakulamBench. There will be no
order as to costs.

S.S . Appeals allowed. D

...