- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on November 5, 1993 in O.A. No. 286/92. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application O.A. No. 286/92 before the Tribunal. The pleadings raised in the application, briefly stated, are as under. The respondents were directly recruited through the Union Public Service Commission as Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) Class I in the Ministry of Communications, while respondents Nos. 3 to 5 before the Tribunal were recruited as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) Class II and both the applicants and the other respondents were subsequently promoted on ad hoc basis and thereafter they were regularised as Executive Engineers (Electrical). The two respondents were aggrieved by the letter sent on February 6, 1992 which was accompanied by a seniority list of the Department of Telecommunication whereby the ad hoc services rendered by respondents 3 to 5 before the Tribunal as Executive Engineers from May 25, 1997, February 21, 1982 and April 16, 1982 respectively being treated as regular services and counted for the purpose of seniority in that grade and proposed to re-fix that position in the final seniority list of Executive Engineers as on April 1, 1985 and thus the applicants before the Tribunal being pushed down in the seniority list.
(2.) There are two channels of recruitment under the relevant recruitment rules and promotions to the post of Executive Engineer are to be made from two categories, namely, Assistant Executive Engineer Class I with five years regular service on seniority-cum-fitness basis (non-selection) in the 2/3rd quota and the other being Assistant Engineer Class II with eight years regular service on seniority-cum-merit basis (selection method) in the 1/3rd quota selection being made by the Departmental Promotion Committee with a member of the UPSC as Chairman.
(3.) The stand taken by the applicants before the Tribunals is that while regular promotions to the grade of Executive Engineers from the Assistant Executive Engineers cadre was made regularly from 1976. However, the seniority in respect of Assistant Engineers Class II was not finalised till November 1987 in view of certain disputes inter se the promotees in the cadre. The D.P.C. thereafter selected from the category of Assistant Engineers Class II in a meeting held only in May 1988 when the D.P.C. selected the appellants for the vacancies belonging to their quota for the years 1977 to 1982. The appellants had thus worked for long period varying from 6 to 11 years in the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc before the D.P.C. could meet for finalising regular promotion. The revision of the seniority list which was challenged before the Tribunal, it was submitted, was only a corrective action though belated to render justice to the affected persons and is in compliance of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated October 12, 1990 in O.A. No. 113/89 directing disposal of the representation regarding the seniority of one of the appellants. It was further made clear in the said direction that it has to be decided after taking into account the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in N.N. Chakraborty case in O. A. No. 978/87 and of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer's Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : (AIR 1990 SC 1607 : 1990 LIC 1304). After noticing several decisions of this Court and of the Tribunal, it was held that under the statutory recruitment rules promotions to the post of Executive Engineer were to be made from among the Assistant Engineers Class II with eight years regular service on seniority-cum-merit by selection method in the 1/3rd quota and admittedly the appellants were promoted on ad hoc basis as Executive Engineers on different dates mentioned earlier. The relevant appointments were purely temporary and on ad hoc basis and were for a limited duration and it was also made clear that services on ad hoc basis will not confer any claim in the matter of seniority, confirmation, etc. Thus it was noticed that the ad hoc promotions were made in administrative exigencies since seniority lists of Assistant Engineers could not be finalised in view of pending litigation and, therefore, the D.P.C. meeting for regular selection could not be arranged. Non-selection for a selection post can hardly be considered to be a minor procedural deficiency and, therefore, the Tribunal concluded that selection was not by a competent D.P.C. and the ad hoc promotion was itself for a limited time and, therefore, does not fulfil the conditions mentioned in the decision in State of West Bengal v. Aghore Nath Dey, (1993) 3 SCC 371. The Tribunal is of the view that ad hoc service to count for seniority must be rendered continuously till the date of regularisation for 15 years or more and, therefore, it held that the appellants could not take advantage of the ad hoc promotions made purely as a stop gap arrangement and it is only in special circumstances such ad hoc service could be counted for purpose of seniority as noticed in some of the decisions of this Court. Consequently, the applications filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and it was declared that the appellants were not entitled to count their ad hoc service in the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical) for seniority, confirmation, promotion, etc. 3. It is contended before us that regular promotions from Executive Engineers, which is a feeder cadre, to the grade of Superintending Engineer could not take place immediately and four vacancies of Superintending Engineers had arisen by the time the meeting of D.P.C. was held on October 17, 1984. Strong reliance was placed on the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal which is to the following effect:- "The first two poits after Point No. 7 of seniority list dated 10-4-85 thus, go to the officers promoted from the rank of AEE (E) and Sl. No. 10 goes to the officer promoted from the rank of AE(E). A point was left blanks in seniority list to accommodate an officer promoted from Group B. This was erroneously shown as Sl. No. 9 instead of Sl. No. 10. This mistake has later on been rectified. The applicant cannot presume that in the selection process, he will find the top most position on the panel. The DPC chaired by a Member of UPSC will draw a selected panel according to statutory Recruitment Rules.";