Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated April 3, 1986 cancelling the acceptance of option and their consequent absorption in the Assistant Grade III (Technical Cadre).
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as Assistant Grade II (General Admn./Depot) in the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the' Corporation). Their date of joining the service is as under : JUDGEMENT_16_LAWS(P&H)6_2001.htm It is averred that the petitioners being graduates were qualified for appointment as Assistant Grade II in the Technical Cadre. They were called upon to give their options for permanent transfer to Technical Cadre. They accordingly gave options for permanent transfer to Technical Cadre, which were accepted vide letter dated July 15, 1985 Annexure P -1. It was also ordered that they would be treated as juniors to persons already working the Technical Cadre and their inter se seniority will be fixed in terms of the Staff Regulations 18(7) and they will have no claim for seniority in the original cadre. In this way, they lost seniority in their original cadre. Consistent with the process of direct recruitment of Assistant Grade III (Technical) in the Technical Cadre, the petitioners service as Assistant Grade II in the original cadre (Admn./Depot) was not counted and they were put at the tail considering their dates of joining in the Technical Cadre as the dates of their appointment. This was done in spite of the fact that the grades and pay of their earlier posts was identical with the new posts. Later on interviews were held by the Board constituted for recruitment to the Assistant Grade III in the Technical Cadre, but the petitioners did not appear in the interviews since they were already working regularly in the Technical Cadre. After the dates and times of interviews were over, the petitioners to their surprise received letter dated 23.4.1986 Annexure P -2 intimating that the notifications about their absorption in the Technical Cadre acceptance of their options stood cancelled which necessarily implies reversion to their original cadre. In this way, the order cancelling the acceptance of their options after a long time has been challenged by the petitioners as illegal, void, unconstitutional, arbitrary, against rules of natural justice, unfair, unjust and discriminatory.
(3.) THE respondents in their joint written statement, admitted the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Grade III in the Admn./Depot Cadre. It has been averred however that their qualifications do not entitle them for absorption in the Technical Cadre, therefore, they could not be absorbed by inviting their option in the Technical Cadre in view of the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4481 of 1980 decided on May 10, 1985. The petitioners were never asked to give option for their absorption from the General Cadre to the Technical Cadre as they had joined only in the year 1984. Options were invited from the employees of the General/Depot Cadre desirous for the change of cadre in the proforma enclosed with the letter dated 19.9.1983 to be submitted at the latest by October 31, 1983. Annexure R -I is copy of the letter dated 19.9.1983 inviting options for the change of cadre. It is, however, admitted that the options submitted by the petitioners were accepted inadvertently. The petitioners on their reversion to the General Cadre will get their seniority at the due place which they are entitled i.e. from their initial date of joining in the General Cadre. The date of inviting applications was October 31, 1983 whereas the petitioners who had been appointed in the year 1984 and thereafter, could not give their options under the Circular Annexure R. 1 and the question of accepting their options could not arise at all. The matter was enquired into and it was found that the options had been accepted inadvertently, therefore, they had rightly been reverted to the General Cadre and the impugned order is legal, valid, constitutional and in conformity with the Circular Annexure R -1. I have heard Shri Munish Jolly, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.;