The Union of India has companye up in appeal against the said decision.
When the recruitment was done through both the above methods, a rule of rotation was also in vogue.
Recruitment to the post of Chargeman Grade 1 was both by promotion as well as by direct recruitment.
As stated above, the direct recruits impleaded as respondents before Madras Tribunal were also impleaded as respondents before the Bangalore Tribunal.
The direct recruits were impleaded as Respondent Nos.4 to 15 who included Respondent Nos.3 to 15 before the Madras Tribunal.
The decision of the Bangalore Tribunal was rendered on October 20, 1987.
In all these years, the posts in the cadre of CGI were filled in from two sources, viz.,
In Civil Appeal No.4340 of 1995, the facts are the following the first respondent herein the petitioner before the Madras Tribunal was promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade 1 on January 5, 1981 on a regular basis.
It was rejected.
The basis of the claim was identical, viz.,
The other respondents direct recruits were also shown as seniors to the first respondent.
731 of 1981 whereas Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition C No.3930 of 1988 is preferred against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench in Original Application No.380 of 1987 as well as the order dismissing a review application filed by the appellants.
In the seniority list issued in the year 1982, while the third respondent in the Original Application was shown at SI.No.37, the petitioner in the Original Application first respondent in this appeal was shown at Sl.
If the principle of the said Office Memorandum is applied to the parties herein, the petitioner in the Original Application first respondent in this appeal is entitled to be treated as senior to Respondent Nos.3 to 15 direct recruits in the Original The learned companynsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 15 in the Original Application direct recruits companyceded before the Tribunal that the quota rule has broken down warranting re fixation of seniority.
The learned companynsel for the appellant Union of India in Civil Appeal No.4340 of 1995 submits that in the interest of uniformity, this Court should decide on merits whether the quota rule had indeed broken down during the period 1978 to 1981 de hors the companycession made on behalf of the direct recruits before the Madras Tribunal.
The Respondent Nos.3 to 15 in the Original Application who are Respondent Nos.2 to 13 in this appeal one of them does number appear to have been impleaded as a respondent in this appeal were appointed as direct recruits to the said post in December 1981.
The Tribunal also rejected the promotees challenge to the Office Memorandum dated February 7, 1986 insofar as it stated that the principle evolved therein shall have only prospective operation and that seniority already determined in accordance with the existing principles on the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum will number be re opened.
This then is the factual position revealed from the records.
direct recruitment and promotions.
Until 1979, the ratio between promotees and direct recruits was 2/3 1/3.
A companymon question arises in these two appeals.
When the petitioners before the Bangalore Bench came to know of the decision of the Madras Tribunal which was rendered on October 30, 1987 , they applied to the Bangalore Tribunal for reviewing its judgment on the basis of the decision of the Madras Tribunal.
From March 3, 1979, it was changed to 80 20 and with effect from June 26, 1985 the channel of direct recruitment has been closed altogether the only method of recruitment is promotion from the post of Chargeman Grade 11.
The Bangalore Tribunal looked into the relevant records and found as follows On an examination of the records, we numberice that there was a deviation or departure in adhering to the quotas prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion in the calender years from 1978 to 1981 reckoning each year as one unit.
the break down of the quota rule.
Identical dispute between the same parties was also raised before the Bangalore Tribunal with this difference.
The Original Application before the Bangalore Tribunal was filed by an Association of the promotees and the promotees Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner Nos.2 to 39 respectively claiming seniority over the respondents direct recruits.
Inasmuch as we are companycerned in these appeals only with the period during which the ratio of 80 20 was in vogue, it is sufficient to numberice that the rotation rule in vogue provided that out of every five vacancies, the first four vacancies shall be filled by promotees and the fifth vacancy by direct recruitment.
The claim of the promotees for seniority was accordingly rejected.
Civil Appeal No.4340 of 1995 is preferred by the Union of India against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench in Original Application No.
Both the aforesaid orders are challenged in the appeal arising from Special Leave Petition C No.3930 of 1988.
For further promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman, they were companysidered on the basis of the aforesaid seniority, with the result that the direct recruits, who were appointed in December 1981 came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman earlier than the first respondent.
The direct recruits remained ex parte but Union of India companytested the promotees case.
Strange enough, during these years, promotions to the cadre were in excess of direct recruitment.
P.JEEVAN REDDY.J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition C No.3930 of 1988.
