ORDER
Neena Ranjan, Member (A)
1. In present OA, applicant impugns respondents’ inaction and the consequent denial of consideration for inclusion in the Select List of Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) for the year 1994 consequent upon revision/modification of the Select List of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary grade) of the CSS for the year 1994.
2. Facts in brief are that applicant, who is working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India is a member of Grade-I (Under Secretary ) of the CSS, which is one of the Central Civil Service (Group ‘A’) of the Union of India. Applicant belongs to SC community with an excellent record of service. The service conditions of the members of the CSS are governed by the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 (the Rules) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Central Secretariat Service (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection grade) Regulations, 1964 framed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12 of the Rules. These are statutory in nature and have the binding force of law. In terms of provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, the Service consists of the following four grades:
S. No. Grade Classification
1. Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary to Central Civil Service
Government of India or equivalent) Group 'A' (Gazetted)
2. Grade I (Under Secretary to the Govt. -do-
of India or equivalent)
3. Section Officers' Grade (Gazetted) Central Civil Service
Group 'B' Ministerial
4. Assistants Grade (Non-gazetted) -do-
3. It is submitted that vacancies in Grade-I of CSS are filled 100% by promotion from eligible permanent Section Officers/Private Secretaries of CSS. Similarly, vacancies in Selection Grade of CSS are filled 100% by promotion from eligible Grade-I officers.
4. The applicant, a direct recruit, joined the service as an Assistant through the Assistants Grade Examination conducted by the UPSC and belongs to the 1976 batch. Thereafter, on promotion as Section Officer, he was included in the Select List of the year 1981 by counting of his approved service as Section Officer w.e.f. 1.7.1981. In accordance with Rule 12 (2), 8 years approved service is required to become eligible for promotion to the post of Grade-I/Under Secretary and thus applicant became eligible for promotion to the Under Secretary grade on 1.7.1989. On 12.8.2002, respondent No. 1 issued Select Lists of Under Secretary grade for the years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. Applicant, no doubt, was eligible to be considered for inclusion in the Select List of the aforesaid years, but could not be included even in the Select List of the year 1994 due to less number of vacancies which was due to wrong calculation of vacancies. As a consequence thereof, applicant was included in the Select List of Grade-I for the year 1995, wherein his name figures at Sl. No. 38. In the select list of the year 1995, he is third among the candidates belonging to SC.
5. It is next contended that respondent No. 1 issued the Select List of Grade-I officers of the CSS and included 40 officers therein who were considered fit for appointment to the Selection Grade of the CSS. The said list was modified on 2.9.2004 which was further modified on 25.5.2005 when 46 officers of Grade-I were included in the revised/modified Select List, thereby adding 6 more officers who all belonged to SC category. When six more officers were to be included and since applicant was at Sl.No.3 he ought to be included in the said list against one of these vacancies arising in the year 1994.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that on implementing the order passed in OA No. 686/2000 (M.C. Arora and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) respondent No. 1 issued the OM dated 11.3.2005 giving benefit to all the CSS officers, who had been appointed as Under Secretary consequent upon their inclusion in the Select List of Grade-I for the years 1991 to 1994 and were in service on 9.8.1999 and drawing their pay and allowances in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 from the said date. Applicant even made a representation on 7.7.2005, followed by reminders dated 27.10.2005 and 8.12.2005 requesting for consideration for inclusion in the Select List of Grade I for the year 1994, but to no avail. Hence, applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) to declare that the impugned inaction of the respondents to consider applicant for inclusion in the Select List of Grade-I of CSS is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unreasonable and, therefore, bad in law and direct the respondents to consider the applicant for inclusion in the Select List of Grade-I of CSS for the year 1994 against one of the 6 vacancies caused due to revision/modification of Select List of Selection Grade for 1994, on the basis of the assessment year 1994 or in the alternative by holding a review DPC.
(ii) As a consequence of granting prayer (i), direct respondent No. 1 to consider the case of applicant for grant of benefit of the OM dated 11.3.2005 with consequential arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 9.8.1988 as given to other officers of Grade-I belonging to the Select List of the year 1994.
7. In the counter-reply, respondents while rebutting the allegations made by applicant submit that there is no ground for inclusion of applicant in the Select List of Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the CSS for the year 1994 consequent upon revision/modification of the Select List of Selection Grade (SLSG) (Deputy Secretary) of the CSS for the year 1994. The revision of SLSG of CSS has no link at all with the Select List of Grade-I of the CSS for the year 1994. On the basis of the judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal on 5.7.2004 filed by one Shri Sheo Ram against non inclusion of his name in the SLSG (DS) for the year 1994, the size of the panel of the SLSG, which was earlier fixed at 40, was extended to 47 by reducing the size of probable panel of the Select List for the year 1995. Since applicant has been included in the Select List of Grade-I (US) for the year 1995, inclusion of seven persons in the SLSG for the year 1994 was against the vacancies of 1995. For this applicant has no claim. Moreover, there is no link to applicant’s claim in the Select List for the year 1994 with inclusion of the aforesaid seven persons in the SLSG of 1994.
8. Further, respondents submit that enlargement of the SLSG for the year 1994 is not correct and the vacancies added later on in the SLSG may not go to SC category in Grade-I but will be distributed amongst various categories according to their share provided under the law. Out of seven added vacancies of 1994, hardly one vacancy could go to the share of SC category. The applicant himself has admitted in his application that there are 2 SC officers senior to him who remained to be included in the Select List of 1994. Therefore, there is no question of including the name of applicant in the Select List of Grade-I of the CSS for the year 1994 even while taking into consideration the aforesaid 7 vacancies who on the basis of Court case, after a review DPC was conducted by reducing an equal number of vacancies from 1995 SLSG of CSS. The name of applicant was within the zone of consideration for the Select List of Grade-I of CSS for the year 1994 but vacancies were filled up before his turn. It is also noted submitted that the name of applicant figured at Sl.No.38 of 1995 Select List of Grade-I (according to seniority in the feeder grade) vis-`-vis fitness of officers on the panel. This clearly shows that when 7 vacancies were added to the Select List of Grade-I of CSS for the year 1994, the applicant could not be accommodated on in that panel.
9. Respondents also contend that size of the panel of Selection Grade for the year 1994 remained at 40, therefore, there is no question of consequential revision of adding of 7 vacancies on Select List of Grade I of the CSS for the year 1994. The roster for reserved category is for each category as per their turn and all additional vacancies could not have gone to a specific reserved category. As such this OA has no merit.
10. The only issue for decision in this OA is that applicant contests his non-inclusion in the select list of the Grade-I (Under Secretary) of the Central Secretariat Service for 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Under Secretary panel. His case is that firstly he was not included in the said panel because of incorrect calculation of Under Secretary vacancies for the year 1994. This has not been agreed to by the respondents. We will leave it at that without expressing an opinion. What is, however, admitted is that the applicant a Scheduled Caste officer – was not included in the 1994 Under Secretary panel for want of vacancies, but was included in the 1995 Under Secretary panel. Secondly, the applicant has contended that when the size of the select list of the Selection Grade of the Central Secretariat Service, hereinafter referred to as 1994 Deputy Secretary panel, was expanded from 40 to 46, all the 6 additional vacancies went to Scheduled Caste under secretaries. He should have been included in the 1994 panel in the consequent vacancies of Under Secretary. The respondents have countered this contention on two grounds. First, that occurrence of vacancies in the Deputy Secretary panel has no link to vacancies in the Under Secretary panel. Secondly, that even if the 7 (not 6) consequential vacancies of Under Secretary in 1994 had been available for that year’s Under Secretary panel, only one or two vacancies would have been assigned to the Scheduled Caste candidates as per government policy. The applicant, being third in order of seniority, would have still missed the 1994 Under Secretary panel.
11. We have perused the material on record, including the minutes of the departmental promotion committees (DPCs) for preparing the 1994/1995 Under Secretary panels and the 1994 Deputy Secretary panel. We have also heard the learned Counsels for both sides.
12. The stand of the respondents in the matter is far from clear. They cannot say that there is no link between Deputy Secretary vacancies and Under Secretary vacancies, because 100% of Deputy Secretary vacancies are filled by eligible Under Secretaries. Admittedly, the size of the Under Secretary panel is dependent on the number of Under Secretary vacancies likely in a particular year. When they included 7 more Under Secretaries in the 1994 Deputy Secretary panel, who are the 7 persons who filled the consequent 1994 Under Secretary vacancies? Similarly, reduction of 7 vacancies of Deputy Secretary in 1995 would automatically reduce the number of vacancies available in 1995 for the Under Secretary panel. On checking the DPC file for notifying the 1994 Deputy Secretary panel, we find that addition of 7 vacancies (and reduction of 7 vacancies from the 1995 Deputy Secretary panel) was an ad hoc invention to comply with this Tribunal’s order of 5.7.2004. This expedient does not justify denial of consequent addition of 7 vacancies to the 1994 Under Secretary panel and reduction in the size of the 1995 panel. The respondents also cannot argue in the same breath that had these 7 vacancies of Under Secretary been available, only 1 or 2 would have gone to the Scheduled Castes. The central question still remains who were the 7 persons who stepped into the vacancies of Under Secretary that were selected in 1994 to become Deputy Secretary? Similarly, was the size of the 1995 Under Secretary panel reduced consequent upon reduction in the number of vacancies of Deputy Secretary in that year? We are inclined to take the view that the case of the applicant requires serious and objective consideration on principle, no matter whether he himself becomes an eventual beneficiary or not.
13. We direct that the respondents consider the questions raised in the preceding paragraph and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the rules, regulations and government instructions on the subject within four months of the date of this order. No costs.