Nishita Mhatre, J. - (1.) The perennial dispute between direct recruits and promotees regarding their inter se seniority has given rise to the present litigation. The seniority list which was published on 1st April, 2008 led the petitioner and several other direct recruits to file the applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the seniority list which showed the promotees were placed higher than the direct recruits. The petitioner filed Original Application being O.A. 1325 of 2011, Respondent No. 16 preferred O.A.1132 of 2011, Respondent No. 17 filed O.A.1133 of 2011 and Respondent No. 18 filed O.A.1232 of 2011 before different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. All the aforesaid applications were transferred to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and heard together. By a common judgment dated 25th August, 2011 the applications were dismissed. Although the Respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are aggrieved by the impugned order, they have been impleaded as proforma respondent and they have not filed separate petitions.
(2.) The petitioner was initially recruited in 1985 to the post of Console Operator in Eastern Railway. In 1990 the Recruitment Rules for recruitment of Director of Income Tax (Systems)/Deputy Director/Computer Manager/Assistant Director/System Analyst and Programmer were published. The Recruitment Rules for Programme Assistant -cum -Console Operator were published on 1st June, 1990. A notification was published on 27th April, 1996 for recruitment in the Income Tax Department. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 applied and after due selection, were recruited and designated as Programmers under the Central Board of Direct Taxes on a temporary basis. They were all later confirmed in service.
(3.) In the year 2000 the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal entertained the challenge of the Programme Assistant -cum -Console Operators on deputation alleging that the Union of India had failed to treat them in accordance with law. The issue raised was whether the service rendered by the applicants during the period of deputation till the date of absorption can be counted for considering the eligibility of the applicants for promotion from the post of Programme Assistant/Console Operator, which was later designated as Data Processing Assistant, Grade A, to the post of Programmer, later designated as Assistant Director (Systems). Respondent Nos. 5, 13 and 14 of the present petition were the applicants in that Original Application being O.A.2516 of 2000. There is no dispute that the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 16, 17 and 18 were not made parties to that application although they were in service and any order passed by the Administrative Tribunal would have affected them in their placement in seniority list. The Tribunal considered the judgment in the case of K. Madhavan and Anr v/s. Union of India and Ors reported in : (1987) 4 SCC 566 and several other judgments of the Supreme Court and held that the appointment of the applicants before them to the post of Programme Assistant/Console Operator (Data Processing Assistant, Grade A) on deputation would have to be considered as an appointment on regular basis. The period spent on deputation was directed to be counted for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the applicants for promotion to the post of Programmer/Assistant Director (Systems). The Tribunal passed an order allowing the following prayers: "(i) Declare that the service rendered by the applicants as Programme Assistant/Console Operator from the date of their initial deputation to the date of their absorption is regular service for the purpose of being considered for promotion as programmer, Group 'A'/Assistant Director System; (ii) Direct the Respondents to consider the applicants for promotion as Programmer Group 'A'/Assistant Director systems from the date, if found fit by the DPC/review DPC with all consequential benefits; (iii) Direct the Respondents to consider the applicants for promotions as Programmer Group 'A'/Assistant Director, Systems from the due date and to promote them as such from the said date, if found fit by the DPC/review DPC with all consequential benefits;";