- (1.) This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad, made on 24/12/1996 in OA No. 1333 of 1995.
(2.) The admitted position is that the petitioner, while working as Section Officer in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, government of India, came on deputation to the CAT, Hyderabad bench on 14/6/1989 as Private secretary to the Member. Thereafter, he sought absorption in the services of the CAT as Private secretary. There was a long-drawn correspondence on this issue and ultimately an option was given to him to get absorbed as Section Officer. Accordingly, he opted for and accepted unconditionally his absorption as a Section Officer in the CAT. He came to be absorbed w. e. f. 4/11/1996. He filed an OA in the tribunal claiming seniority with reference to the date of his promotion as Section Officer in his parent department or alternatively, from the date of his deputation from 14/6/1989 contending that he had given his option subject to protection of his seniority. The tribunal has pointed out in its order that there are two different sets of rules for the recruitment of Private Secretaries and Section Officers. The post of Private secretary is governed by the rules called central Administrative tribunal Stenographers' Services (Group B and C Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. Equally, there are rules issued by the President under the Act governing the ministerial staff. They are called the central Administrative tribunal (Group B and C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989. The posts of the Private secretary are covered by the Stenographers' Services Rules while the posts of Section Officer are covered by the Ministerial Staff Services Rules. Rule 5 (1 of the former Rules read as under: "5.(1 Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of these rules, the persons holding the posts of Private secretary. . in the CAT on the date of commencement of the rules. . on deputation basis and who fulfil the qualifications and experience laid down in these rules and who are considered suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee shall be eligible for absorption/regularisation in the respective grade subject to the condition that such persons exercise their option for the absorption and that their parent department does not have any objection to their being absorbed in the tribunal. " The tribunal has pointed out that the appointment of the appellant to the post of Private secretary was made by way of transfer on deputation and is governed by the conditions mentioned in Annx. I to the Rules. The tribunal ordered as under: "The 'cat (Group "b" and "c" Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989' were made separately vide Notification dated 20/9/1989 by the Department of Personnel and Training. These rules make separate a provisions for the posts of 'court Officers/section Officers'. In the Schedule the post has been designated as Group 'b' Gazetted in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500. Only to that extent it is similar to Private secretary. However, the mode of recruitment is different. The method prescribed is: (I) 50% by direct recruitment failing which by transfer/transfer on deputation. (Ii) 50% by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. ' The entry in column 12 on which an argument of the applicant has been built, insofar as material here, provides as follows: (Ii) Transfer on deputation/transfer: Person working under central/state government/high court/sub- ordinate courts. (A) (I) holding analogous post on regular basis, or (Ii) holding posts of Assistant or equivalent in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 with 8 years' regular service. (B) possessing the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits in column 8. ' The appointment is through selection by the DPC. Rule 5 of the aforesaid rules also makes provision for absorption / regularisation of court Officers/section Officers in the same grade subject to exercising option and no objection of parent department. The rule applies to those who held the said post on the date of commencement of the rules either on transfer or on deputation basis. The qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in column 8 for these posts are: 'essential. Degree of a recognised University or equivalent. Desirable, Degree in law. ' The picture that emerges on comparison of the two sets of recruitment rules is as follows: (I) The two posts, namely of Private secretary and Section/ court Officer are governed by separate set of recruitment rules. (Ii) The mode and method relating to recruitment to these posts are different in material requirements. (Iii) The educational qualifications are different. ' Thus we have no hesitation in holding that these are two distinct posts. The eligibility criteria for absorption vide Rule 5 of both the sets of Rules lays down two essential conditions, namely, that on the date on which the two sets of Rules were brought into force the incumbent 565 should have been holding the same post and would be eligible to be absorbed in the same grade. In the context although the scale of pay of the post of Private secretary and Section Officer may be the same and both may be in the feeder cadre for further promotion yet the words same grade occurring in Rule 5 of the respective Recruitment Rules must mean the same post to which the particular Recruitment Rules would apply. Interchangeability in the two posts cannot be read in the Rules. In other words a Section Officer could be eligible to be absorbed only as Section Officer and a Private secretary only as Private secretary subject to the condition of holding the post on the date of commencement of the respective Rules. It is submitted by the applicant that notwithstanding that he was holding the post of Private secretary he should be deemed to be in equivalent grade or in analogous post and on that basis he could be absorbed even as Section Officer so that he would not lose the benefit of past service for seniority. The applicant seeks to rely on the decision of the Supreme court in Hari Nandan Sharan Bhatnagar v. S. N. Dixit. It was held in that case that the dictionary meaning of 'grade' is rank, position in scale, a class or position in a class according to the value. The term however was explained in A. K. Subraman v. Union of India as having various shades of meaning in the service jurisprudence, sometimes used to denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre. It is relevant to note that under the Stenographers' Service Recruitment Rules, 1989, 58 posts of Private secretary were specified and under the Miscellaneous Posts Recruitment Rules, 1989, 91 posts of court Officer/section Officer were specified subject to variation depending on workload. In that sense posts of Private secretary and court Officer/section Officer would fall in two separate cadres. The word 'cadre' means permanent establishment of regiment forming nucleus for expansion at need and it does not mean post but strength of the establishment. We are therefore unable to reach any element of interchangeability in the two posts for the purpose of absorption in the post of Section Officer as analogous to absorption in the post of Private secretary for reckoning seniority. The argument of the applicant therefore cannot be accepted. "
(3.) On the basis of the above distinction, the tribunal has rightly pointed out that the method of recruitment to the two categories of posts are different and distinct and, therefore, both the posts cannot be treated to be analogous.;