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

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

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

32Copy pinpoint32. 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

33Copy pinpoint33. 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

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.

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.

34Copy pinpoint34. 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.