Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. - (1.) In the writ petition, the petitioners prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith act in accordance with law and prepare the gradation list and/or seniority list of the Geologist (Junior) from the date of initial appointment and or from the date of initial officiation and/or from the date of initial induction in the cadre of Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India and for cancellation and withdrawal of the gradation (1st which was prepared and published on 17.11.84 giving retrospective seniority of the promotee Geologist (Junior), before their induction in the cadre of Geologist (Junior) and/or before their officiation to the post of Geologist (Junior) The petitioners further prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to recommend the name of the Geologist (Junior) for the promotion to the post of Geologist (Senior) on the basis of seniority fixed from the date of initial appointment and/or initial officiation.
(2.) The petitioners were all initially appointed as Geologist (Junior) as per recruitment rules for the post of Geologist (Junior) in the Geological Survey of India on the basis of the merit and on the basis of the results of the competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission during the years 1976 to 1981. The petitioners state that the next avenue for promotion for the post of Geologist (Junior) is Geologist (Senior) and in order to be eligible for appointment to the said post of Geologist (Senior), 5 years' continuous service in the post of Geologist (Junior) was mandatorily required and that all the petitioners had duly Completed and were going to complete 5 year' continuous service in the post of Geologist (Junior). According to the petitioners, all the petitioners who had completed 5 years' service in the post of Geologist (Junior), would be eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of Geologist (Senior). The petitioners' case was that the petitioners' seniority have been determined in accordance with he recruitment rules and the respondents prepared a gradation list and/or seniority list fixing the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with law. It was further stated that such gradation list and/or seniority list was published and circulated by the Respondents in the year 1982 which according to the petitioners was prepared strictly in accordance with law. It was further stated that in the said seniority list which was published and circulated in the year 1982, the seniority position of the petitioners were between serial Nos. 968 and 1435. It was alleged by the petitioners that after publication of the said seniority list in the year 1982, some of the prospective promotee Geologist (Junior) moved a writ application before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, alleging that the said gradation list was not prepared in accordance with law, but as the Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines directed the respondents to prepare a gradation list on the basis of the recruitment rules, it was alleged that the prospective promotee Geologist (Junior) did rot proceed with the said writ application filed in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. Thereafter, the petitioners made enquiries and on enquiry the petitioners came to know that the Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines issued direction to prepare gradation list at the ratio of 1:1 on the purported plea that the quota rule was not maintained in the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 and in order to accommodate the promotee Geologist (Junior) in the gradation/seniority list on the basis of recruitment tides, the seniority with retrospective effect to the promotee Geologists were issued. In other words, the case of the petitioners was that the respondents proceeded to revise the seniority list on the footing that the quota of the promotees for appointment in the post of Geologist (Junior) in the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 were not fully filled up by the promottes, but the quota earmarked for the promotees were encroached by the direct recruitees in contravention of the recruitment rules. As such, the alleged reserved vacancies allegedly earmarked for the promotees should be shown to have been filled up by the promotees who are recruited at a much later date and in some case several years after the direct recruitees were appointed in the said posts.
(3.) The petitioners' contention is that the promotee Geologists (Junior) cannot have any seniority from an artificial or imaginary date. Their seniority has be fixed from the dale of their promotion to the post end that they could not be given seniority with retrospective effect, namely, from a date on which they had not been promoted and from a date on which they were not eligible to be promoted at all. According to the petitioners, the question of keeping the quota fixed for the promoters could not be kept vacant in view of the recruitment rules and further the appointment of the petitioners in the respective years were made on direct recruitment basis in accordance with the recruitment rules and that it was no longer open to the respondents to re-open the issue and to take away the seniority which was fixed in respect of the direct recruitee in the post of Geologist (Junior) which was fixed with effect from their date of appointment. The relevant provision namely Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Geologist (Junior) is set out below "50% by promotion failing which by direct recruitment through competitive examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission failing which by ad hoc selection by open advertisement through U.P.S.C. and 50% through competitive examination to be conducted by a selection failing which ad hoc selection by open advertisement through the Commissioner. It may be mentioned that the said recruitment rules was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.;