UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. N.R. PARMAR & ORS.

A Having so concluded, it is natural to record, that as the position presently stands, the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 would have an overriding effect over the OM dated 3.3.2008 (to the extent of conflict between them). And the OM dated 3.3.2008 has to be ignored/omitted to the extent that the same is in 8 derogation of the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. In the light of the conclusions recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that the OM dated 3.3.2008 is not relevant for the determination of the present controversy.

30. Besides the interpretation of the relevant OMs issued by the DOPT, learned counsel representing the promotees placed reliance on some judgments of this Court in order to press their contention, that seniority for direct recruits could not be determined with reference to a date preceding the date of their recruitment. In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reliance was placed on Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. v. State of Orissa and others, (1998) 4 SCC 456; Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & Anr., (2000) 7 SCC 561; and Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. v. Reevan Singh & Ors., (2011) 3 sec 267.

31. The seniority rule applied in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case (supra) has been extracted in paragraph 24 of the said judgment. The seniority rule in question, inter alia expressed, that seniority would be determined with reference to the date of recruitment. In Suraj Prakash Gupta's case (supra), the F relevant seniority rule was extracted in paragraph 53 which provided, that seniority would be determined with reference to the date of first appointment. The rule itself expressed that the words "date of first appointment" would mean the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy. In Pawan G Pratap Singh's case (supra) the question which arose for consideration, related to determination of inter se seniority between two sets of direct recruits. The first set comprised of vacancies advertised in 1987 which came to be filled up in 1994, and the second set comprised of vacancies of the year H 1990 which came to be filled up in the year 1991. The

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. N.R. PARMAR & ORS. 607

[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] purport of the OM dated 7.2.1986 (in paragraph 20 A hereinabove). We have also recorded our conclusions with reference to the OM dated 3. 7.1986 wherein we have duly taken into consideration the true purport of paragraph 2.4.2 contained in the OM dated 3. 7.1986 (in paragraph 21 hereinabove). The aforesaid conclusions are not being B repeated again for reasons of brevity. We have separately analysed the effect of the OM dated 3.3.2008 (in paragraph 26 of the instant judgment). It is not possible for us to conclude that the position expressed in the earlier office memoranda is unclear, doubtful, inexplicit or ambiguous. Certainly not on the c subject sought to be clarified by the OM dated 3.3.2008. A comparison of the conclusions recorded in paragraph 20 (with reference to the OM dated 7.2.1986) and paragraph 21 (with reference to OM dated 3.7.1986) on the one hand, as against, the conclusions drawn in paragraph 26 (with reference to OM 0 dated 3.3.2008) on the other, would lead to inevitable conclusion, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 clearly propounds, a manner of determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, by a method which is indisputably in conflict with the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. Ofcourse, it was possible for the Department of Personnel and Training to E "amend" or "modify" the earlier office memoranda, in the same manner as the OM dated 7.2.1986 had modified/amended the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959. A perusal of the OM dated 3.3.2008, however reveals, that it was not the intention of the Department of Personnel and Training to alter the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, as had been expressed in the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3. 7.1986. The intention was only to "clarify" the earlier OM dated 3.7.1986 (which would implicitly include the OM dated 7.2.1986). The OM dated 3.3.2008 has clearly breached the parameters and the ingredients of a "clarification". Therefore, for all intents and purposes the OM dated 3.3.2008, must be deemed to be non-est to the extent that the same is in derogation of the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. H

p. 609

[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] controversy in Pawan Pratap Singh's case (supra) was conspicuously different from the controversy in hand. In view of the fact that the seniority rules, as also the factual matrix in the cases relied upon was substantially at variance with the relevant OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 (which are the subject of interpretation in so far as the present case is concerned), as also the facts of the cases in hand, it is apparent, that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are inapplicable to determine the present controversy.

32. One finds attracted to the observations recorded in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik's case (supra) wherein it was observed, c "when the language used in the statute is unambiguous and on a plain grammatical meaning being given to the words in the statute, the end result is neither arbitrary, nor irrational nor contrary to the object of the statute, then it is the duty of the court to give effect to the words used in the statute because the D words declare the intention of the law making authority best". We are of the view that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the present controversy. We may add that the various ONs and letters issued by the DOPT (referred to above) do not leave room for any ambiguity. E

33. Having interpreted the effect of the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 (in paragraphs 20 and 21 hereinabove), we are satisfied, that not only the requisition but also the advertisement for direct recruitment was issued by the SSC in the recruitment year in which direct recruit vacancies had arisen. F The said factual position, as confirmed by the rival parties, is common in all matters being collectively disposed of. In all these cases the advertised vacancies were filled up in the original/ first examination/selection conducted for the same. None of the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors herein can be stated to be G occupying carried forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a "later" examination/selection process. The facts only reveal, that the examination and the selection process of direct recruits could not be completed within the recruitment H

p. 610

A year itself. For this, the modification/amendment in the manner of determining the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, carried out through the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the compilation of the instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM dated 3.7.1986, leave no room for any doubt, that B the "rotation of quotas" principle, would be fully applicable to the direct recruits in the present controversy. The direct recruits herein will therefore have to be interspaced with promotees of the same recruitment year.

34. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals, the Transferred C Case, as well as, the Transfer Case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promotees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the Income Tax Department D is declined. K.K.T. Appeals & transferred Cases allowed.