NAWAL KISHORE SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has obtained a rule (i) for inclusion with due seniority in the Indian Statistical Service from its initial constitution of service in preference to Respondents 7 to 14 ; (ii) for his promotion to the higher post with the seniority with retrospective effect from the date he would have been promoted ; (iii) for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to finalise the seniority list on correct basis within a reasonable time and for restraining them from making any further promotion and (iv) for quashing and cancelling the promotion of respondent Nos. 15 to 24 in supersession of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts, in brief, can be stated as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner's cage is that he fulfilled all the qualifications for his selection for appointment to the Indian Statistical Service. He was holding the post on regular basis as an Assistant Director in the Directorate and was one of the "Departmental candidates" within the meaning of rule 2 (d) of the Rules at the time of the enforcement of the Rules and the constitution of the Indian Statistical Service. It is asserted that respondents nos. 7 to 24 who are junior in service to the petitioner and are possessing similar minimum qualification as that of the petitioner have been included and appointed in the Indian Statistical Service and also promoted to higher posts. Annexure-4 contains all the details in respect of the above mentioned averments. It is said that respondents Nos. 7 to 14 who are shown at Feria No. 9, 8, 1, and 3 to 7 of Annexure-4 were appointed to the Indian Statistical Service, and when the Petitioner came to know about this he fitted a representation, to the Additional Secretary, Dep'tttment of Statistics, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi which was rejected by Memorandum No IP-A/C D/N/S/S 63 dated the 27th Aug., 1963 (Vide Annexure-6). The petitioner thereafter made another representation to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, but this also met the same fate This 'order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner by means of a reply contained in Annexure-7). A memorial was thereafter filed to the President, of India which was also rejected on the 11th Nov., 1966. The petitioner received a communication to this effect under Annexure-8. The petitioner also relies on the representations contained in Annexures-9 and 10 which indicates that the Chief Director had suggested the suitability of the petitioner for the appointment in the Indian Statistical Service and for the consideration of the petitioner's claims for the said appointment by the Selection Board, as, according to him, the petitioner fulfilled all the qualifications and conditions of the "departmental candidate". There was another notification published' in the Extra-Ordinary Gazette of India the 24th Dec., 1966, by which the Rules of 1961 were amended and called 'Indian Statistical Service (Eighth Amendment) Rules' ' under which these holding the posts of Assistant Statisticians and Regional Officers (Both Class II posts) were made eligible for appointment and inclusion in the Indian Statistical Service. Respondents nos. 15 to 23 who, according to the petitioner, are holding posts of Statisticians and Regional Officers were designated as Assistant Directors although they continued to draw the same pay and allowances as before and consequently continued to be juniors to the petitioners. Annexure-11 which is a copy of the Memorandum bearing no. PFG (17) 63-Estt. I dated the '25th April 1968, sent to the Officers concerned by the Chief Director is relied upon for the said contention. The petitioner's further case is that in pursuance of the amended Rule of 1966, he was appointed to Grade IV of the Indian Statistical Service on probation for a period of two years with effect from the 17th Oct. 1967, by notification No F.1 /9/69-Estt. (E) dated the 20th Aug., 1968, and by the same notification respondents nos. 15 to 23 were also appointed to the Indian Statistical Service on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of notification dated the 20th August 1968 (Annexure- 12). It is stated that Even thou-h the petitioner was appointed under Annexure-12 to the Indian Statistical Service with effect from the 17th Oct. 1967, the placing of the Officers so appointed in Grade ' IV of the said service had not been notified The petitioner, accordingly, addressed a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, to inform the petitioner about his placement in the seniority list of grade IV of I. S. S. Officers (Annexure-13). The petitioner again wrote another letter making the same enquiry (Annexure-15). The answers contained in two letters (Annexures- 14 and 16) indicate that the matter was under consideration of the Department of Personal. It is the petitioner's case in this writ application that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was appointed by Annexure-12 with effect from the 17th Oct. 1967, as against respondents nos 15 to 23, who were appointed with effect from the date the notification, namely, the 20th August 1968. the latter were promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Grade III of the I S. S.) in preference to and ignoring the claims of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi, praying for the consideration of his case (Annexure-17). The reply to the above representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure-18 is D. O. No. 12/13/71 Estt (c) dated the 11th Aug. 1971, informing the petitioner that the final decision in the matter will be taken after receiving the comments from the Department of Statistics.