AMIT SINGH v. RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY ETC. ETC & Ors.

Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules mandates that, if in any year of recruitment, appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, a combined select list shall be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, in such manner that the prescribed percentage is maintained, the first name in the list being of the person appointed by promotion. Sub- rule (2) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules specificallyprovides that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments are to be made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments shall not be made unless selections are made from both the sources and a combined list is prepared in accordance with Rule 18. Subrule(3) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules further provides that, if more than one orders of appointments are issued in respect of any one selection, a combined order shall also be issued, mentioning therein the names of the persons in order of seniority as determined in the selection or, as the case may be, as it stood in the cadre from which they are promoted. It further A B C D E F G H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H provides that, if the appointments are made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, names shall be arranged in accordance with the cyclic order referred to in Rule 18. [Paras 17 and 18][594-F-H; 595-A-B]

The inter se seniority between thepromotees and the direct recruits will have to be determined in accordance with the 1992 Rules. The 1992 Rules fix the quota of 67% for direct recruits and 33% for promotees. A “year of recruitment” has been defined to be a period of twelve months, commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year and as such, in the present case, the year of recruitment would be from 1st of July of 1997 to 30th of June1998. [Para 23][597-C]

Admittedly, the direct recruits were appointed on 18th August, 1997, whereas the promotees were appointed on 16th December, 1997, i.e. both were appointed in the selection/ recruitment year 1997-98. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules, where the appointment of both the direct recruits and of the promotees were to be made in the same year of recruitment, regular appointments should not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules. In view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the 1992 Rules, since the appointments in the same selection/recruitment year were made both by direct recruitment and by promotion, the names were required to be arranged in accordance with the cyclic order referred to in Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules. In view of Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, a combined select list has to be prepared by taking the names of candidates from the relevant list, as per the quota for the direct recruits. In other words, the first name in the list was required to be that of a promotee. [Para 24][597-D- F]

A combined seniority list was initially prepared in accordance with the said provisions of the 1992 Rules on 18th September 2003. However, it had been erroneously changed on 29th July, 2005, thereby giving undue benefits to the direct recruits over the promotees. Such a list was in contravention of the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 of the 1992 Rules. When the 1992 Rules specifically emphasized that, where in any year of recruitment, appointments were to be made both by direct AMIT SINGH v. RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY & ORS. ETC. ETC. 587 recruitment and by promotion, regular appointments could not have been made unless selections were made from both the sources and a combined list was to be prepared in accordance with Rule 18 of the 1992 Rules, the seniority list dated 29th July 2005, which provided a higher seniority to the direct recruits, is, for the aforesaid reasons, not sustainable in law. [Para 25][597- G-H; 598-A-B] Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others vs. State of U.P.and others (2006) 10 SCC 346 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 609 – held inapplicable.