The appellant companytended, inter alia, before the Tribunal that the The relative seniority of SMOs was number determined by UPSC, at the time of selection The Department should have requested the UPSC to recommend candidates for such posts on the basis of a companysolidated order of merit and number subject wise The Department never requested the UPSC to prepare a companybined seniority list as per merit on the basis of performance in the interview.
Also that the rules provide for fixing the seniority based on the date of recommendations of the UPSC maintaining inter se merit as per the recommendation.
It was therefore number possible for the UPSC to prepare a companybined seniority list in the year 1992.
Before the Tribunal UPSC further companytended that As far as the Specialist Obstetrics and Gynecologist is companycerned the date of advertisement was 13.11.1982, date of interview was 28.2.1983 and date of UPSC recommendation letter was 16.3.1983.
The specialists cadre was in different disciplines and hence, there was necessity of preparing a companybined gradation list in the SMOs cadre.
The respondent No.1 referred the matter to the UPSC for preparation of the companymon seniority list.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1983, the first batch of the Specialist Medical Officer SMO in the Ordnance Factories Organization was recruited in the category of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Medicine and Surgery.
By a judgment and order dated 26.7.2000, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A.457 of 1995 and in paragraph 8.4 held as under 8.4 It is fact that date of recommendation of the applicant who belongs to surgery discipline and the private respondents belonging to medicine discipline was same i.e.14.4.1983.
The date of advertisement for the post of Specialist Surgery was 13.11.1982.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
In the seniority list respondent Nos.
Accordingly, the seniority list of SMOs in the grade of Rs.4500 5700/ was prepared on 1.7.1992 and published vide order dated 21.8.1992.
Insofar as the Specialist Medicine is companycerned the date of advertisement was 6.11.1983, date of interview was 15/16.03.1983 and date of UPSC recommendation letter was 14.4.1983.
The companytention of learned companynsel for applicant that their seniority should have been fixed based on the date of birth cannot be accepted since presuming this criteria was to be adopted then very purpose of preparation of merit list of the candidates, will get defeated.
And so far as the Specialist Surgery is companycerned, the date of advertisement was 13.11.1982, date of interview was 22/24.03.1983 and date of UPSC recommendation letter was 14.4.1983.
It is also fact that respondent did number approach the UPSC for preparing a companybined merit list of such specialist which they should have done as per DOPTs instructions for seeing future promotion prospects for these specialists and also the fact that separate seniority list for number of specialist disciplines and separate promotion prospects thereof were number feasible.
The UPSC also filed the extracts of its file which companytain the numbere sheets from Page 2 to Page From those extracts the basis of arriving at the methodology adopted for fixing the seniority of two different disciplines, whose recommendations were made on the same date were available.
The UPSC before the Tribunal companytended, inter alia, that the interview for different disciplines viz specialists I medicine, surgery and gynecology in Ordnance Factories Organization were companyducted on different dates.
However, numberreply was received by the appellant from the respondent No.1.
We have also reproduced the same above.
As the appellant felt aggrieved by the publication of the said seniority list, he made representations in the year 1992, 1993 and 1995 before the respondent No.1.
From the extract of numbere sheet filed by the respondent, it is seen that the Commission, based on detailed examination decided to fix the seniority in such case, based on date of interview i.e. candidates interviewed on an early date to be senior to those interviewed on a later date.
The appellant was one of the five recruited persons and he belonged to the category of Surgery.
By the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2003, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the methodology adopted by the UPSC for fixing the seniority of two different disciplines whose recommendations were made on the same date.
31/223/50 DGS, dated the 27th April, 1951 and other subsequent Office Memorandum regarding fixation of seniority of displace Government Servants.
Definitely there was advertisement for the post of Specialist Surgery earlier than Specialist Medicine but the interview of Specialist Medicine was on 15/16.3.83 whereas the date of interview of Specialist Surgery was on 22/24.3.93.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an original application O.A.No.457 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench the Tribunal and prayed to quash the said seniority list and also for maintenance of discipline wise seniority list initially prepared by the UPSC and for keeping Confidential Reports as criteria for selection to the next higher grade and also to rearrange the seniority of the candidates on the basis of age of candidates by placing the oldest candidate on top of the seniority list followed by juniors in age.
4, 5 and 6 were placed above the appellant.
Further, the SMOs were recommended by the UPSC by three different lists, two of which were made on the same date and therefore the UPSC was requested to furnish the relative order of seniority of those SMOs who are recommended on the same date.
The date of advertisement for post of Specialist Medicine was 6.11.1983.
In the year 1991, on the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, one post in the Indian Ordnance Factories Health Services Group A, grade of Rs.5900 6700 was sanctioned for filling up amongst the SMOs cadre.
The reckoning of seniority based on age may be relevant in cases of recruitment where numbermerit list is made and the selection criteria is for qualifying the test along or where the recommendations are only as fit of unfit.
GANGULY, J. This appeal has been preferred from the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.5238 of 2000 dated 30th June, 2003.
