B.S. MURTHY & Ors. v. A. RAVINDER SINGH & Ors.

#5. The existence of PRI vacancies is a matter of objective fact – as can be seen from the replies to the RTI queries. Those vacancies fell to the share of PRIs, in terms of the 25% quota earmarked for them, under statutory rules. In such circumstances, to say that those promoted, by resort to DPCs and regularized later, should be treated as ad-hoc promotees, would be contrary to express rules. In other words, by giving effect to Para 5 of the 1986 OM, (and treating the promotions as ad-hoc for purposes of inter se seniority), the statutory rules are virtually given a go bye. It is also contrary to the stated objective sought to be achieved by Para 3 of the 1986 OM, which is to “present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with.” The promotions of the PRIs before the court therefore, have to be treated as regular. The court is of the opinion, that the reasoning of the High Court, in overlooking these aspects, is clearly in error. [Para 60][39-D-F]

#6. The other aspect – which the High Court ignored, is that a number of vacancies were filled from amongst the quota for compassionate appointment, and the sports quota. They were not reported to the SSC. In such circumstances, to treat the promotees as exceeding the quota set apart for them (though as a matter of fact, they were accommodated within the quota) is not warranted. Furthermore, the materials on record also show that though there was a ban on direct recruitment, it did not apply to vacancies which were to be filled up by way of promotion in terms of the Recruitment Rules. [Para 61][39-G-H; 40-A]

#7. High Court fell into error in setting aside the order of the CAT, which is restored. It is held that (i) No excess promotions took place during the period 1983 and 1991. 25% of the actual vacancies arising every year during that period were for the promotees. No direct recruit vacancy for any year was filled by promotees. (ii) Indents/requisitions placed with, the SSC for the 5 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R. recruitment of DRIs were for a part of the vacancies and not for the exact 75% of the actual vacancies available in each year. (iii) The record does not bear out instances of suppression or under- reporting of vacancies available for direct recruits out of the permanent cadre strength in any year, to help the promotees. As a result, there is no justification for invoking para 5 of the O.M. of 1986. The department erroneously proceeded as if there were excess promotions by wrongly estimating the promotee quota on the basis of the indents placed for direct recruitment; (iv)(a) The date of appointment of direct recruits the date for counting seniority- it is not from the date of receipt of the dossiers from the recruiting authorities or the date of recommendation. Resultantly seniority of direct recruits appointed after 01.03.86 has to be revised only from the date of their respective appointments but not earlier to 01.03.1986 as was done in the impugned seniority list, (b) Direct recruits of 1992 could be given seniority only in that year but not earlier, or in 1991 as was erroneously done in the impugned seniority list; (vi)Those promoted ad hoc basis in any year in the vacancies available to them were eligible for seniority from the date of their continuous officiation, if -they were promoted within their eligible quota of that year under the Recruitment Rules. The impugned judgment and order is set aside accordingly; the appeals by the PRIs are allowed in the terms of the findings of the Court. The consequential action, by way of drawing and publishing a final seniority list, in accordance with the findings, shall be completed within three months. [Paras 62 and 63][40-B-H; 41-A, D]