J.C. Roy, J. - (1.) These two applications were filed as writ petitions before the High Court at Calcutta in March 1981 and got transferred for disposal to this Bench of the Tribunal by the operation of Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The facts, grievance and the prayers of the applicants being the same, we heard these two applications together and propose to dispose of them by a common order.
(2.) The undisputed facts required to understand the dispute may be stated briefly. All the applicants are stated to be the 19th batch of Supervisory Apprentices taken by the Director General of Ordnance Factories (DGOF) except applicant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of T.A. 1979/86. These three applicants were taken in as Trainee Supervisors in the A. T.S., Ambarnath sometime in 1970. After completing their apprenticeship training period all of them were appointed in February, 1972 as temporary Chargemen, Grade II or its equivalent posts of Draftsmen in the different factories under the DGOF. Their common grievance is that between 1977 and 1979 when the seniority list of Chargemen, Grade II was published, they were shown juniors to many departmental promotees, some of them were initially made the private respondents in both the applications. Subsequently, while the cases were pending before the High Court, since the applicants wanted to convert the cases into one filed in representative capacity on behalf of the Apprentices and Trainees, under rule II of the Rules framed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the rule against the private respondents was allowed to be discharged. The main challenge is against the principle followed in drawing up the seniority list which is based on the statutory rules regarding recruitment of supervisory personnel in the Ordnance factories as laid down in SRO 4 dated 4.1.1956. According to rule 6 of the above -mentioned SRO the procedure for filling up the posts of Chargemen, Grade II is laid down. Since we would be referring to this rule frequently, we quote below the said rule 6 in full : 6. Vacancies in the grade of Chargemen, Grade II shall normally be filled in the following manner, namely - (a) 80 percent by promotion of Supervisors, Grade -A in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 or by appointment of selected qualified apprentices recruited and trained in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 'B'; and (b) 20 percent by direct recruitment. Of course, this statutory recruitment rule was amended by SRO 282 notified in the gazette in May 1973 but this amendment was given retrospective effect expressly in the said SRO. The amended rule was to take effect from 1.10.71. Here rule 6 of 1956 recruitment rules was altered and the following new amendment was introduced : 6. Vacancies in the Grade of Chargemen, Grade II shall be filled in the following manner, namely - (a) 20% by appointment of qualified trainees recruited and trained in accordance with the training schemes framed by the Director General with the approval of the Government failing which by appointment of direct recruits. (b) 80% by promotion in accordance with the provisions of rule 8. The contention of the applicants is that at the time of their initial appointment in February 1972 in the grade of Chargemen, Grade II, the 1956 recruitment rule was holding the field. Before amendment of the rule in. May 1973 and giving it retrospective effect from October 1971, the applicants were not given an opportunity of hearing before deciding their seniority. In order to make the story complete, it has been brought to our notice that the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, by an Office Memorandum dated 1.10.71 had notified their intention of amendment of then existing (i.e. 1956) recruitment rule and had stated that it was decided that all posts of Chargemen, Grade II would be filled up by promotion to the extent of 80% and the balance 20% would be utilised for direct recruitment including appointment of apprentices trained and graded under various training schemes in force. One of the main questions, therefore, which we are called upon to adjudicate is whether this O.M. gives any legitimacy to the action of the Government in deciding against which quota the applicants were initially appointed. In short, the dispute has arisen because in drawing up the seniority list between 1977 and 1979, the applicants have been clubbed with direct recruits under the amended recruitment rule of 1973 instead of their being included in the 80% quota of promotees under the 1956 recruitment rule.
(3.) We have heard Mr. M. S. Banerjee, the Learned Counsel leading Mr. S. K. Dutta and Mr. M. K. Bandopadhyay, Learned Counsels for the applicants of both the cases and Mr. D. N. Das, Sr. Standing Counsel leading Mr. S. C. Das, counsel on behalf of the Govt. respondents at some length.;