{"id":133978,"date":"2008-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-23T09:16:09","modified_gmt":"2016-08-23T03:46:09","slug":"afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: L S Panta<\/div>\n
Bench: H. K. Sema, Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1384 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nAFHQ\/ISOs SOs (DP) Association & Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nH. K. Sema & Altamas Kabir & Lokeshwar Singh Panta\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1384 OF 2008
\n[Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.4545 of 2007]
\nWITH
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.   1385  OF 2008
\n[Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.5853 of 2007]
\nAFHQ Officers’ Association & Ors.             \t ….  Appellants
\nVersus
\nUnion of India & Ors.\t\t\t\t   …..    Respondents<\/p>\n
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe usual question as regards determination of inter se
\nseniority between Direct Recruits (DRs) and Departmental
\nPromotees (DPs) once again falls for consideration in these two
\nappeals by special leave, therefore, for the sake of
\nconvenience, they are being heard and decided by this
\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment and
\norder of the High Court of Delhi dated 14th November, 2006 in
\nC.W.P. No. 4058\/2002; C.W.P. No. 4458\/2002; C.W.P. No.
\n5396\/2002 and C.W.P. No. 62\/2003 and order dated 15th
\nJanuary, 2007 in C.W.P. No. 18073\/2005, whereby and
\nwhereunder the order dated 1st April, 2002 in O.A. No.
\n1356\/1997 (Smt.Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.)
\nof the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
\nDelhi, is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred
\nto as “the Tribunal”) allowed the said O.A. filed by Smt.
\nAmmini Rajan & Ors. challenging the Select List of Assistants
\nfor promotion to the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers
\n(hereinafter referred to as “ACSOs”) and Armed Forces
\nHeadquarters(AFHQ) Civil Services for the years 1977, 1978
\nand 1979 which was circulated vide letter dated 2nd July,
\n1996; the Select List for the year 1980 which was circulated
\nvide another letter dated 20.09.1996; the Select List for the
\nyear 1981 circulated vide letter dated 20.11.1996 and also the
\nSelect List of 1982 circulated vide letter dated 14.03.1997.
\nThe applicants were also aggrieved by the consequential
\nSeniority List of ACSOs of AFHQ Civil Services prepared by the
\nDepartmental Promotion Committee (for short “the DPC”) for
\nthe years 1988-89 and 1989-90 respectively for promotion to
\nfurther grade of Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs).  Based on the
\nrevised Select List in the grade of ACSOs, the claim of the
\napplicants was that the Select List and the Seniority List for
\npromotion to the grade of CSOs were drawn in contravention
\nof the directions given by the Tribunal in TA No.356\/1985 (CW
\n3\/78) rendered in Shri M.G. Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India &
\nOrs. on 20th November, 1992 and also in violation of AFHQ
\nCivil Services Rules, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on
\nrecord, disposed of O.A. No. 1356 of 1997 (Smt. Ammini
\nRajan’s case) with the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tImpugned orders Annexure-A-1 and A-2
\nare quashed. The respondents are directed
\nto determine the seniority between the
\ndirect recruits and promotees regularly
\nappointed\/promoted within their
\nrespective quota by counting the length of
\ncontinuous officiation in the grade of
\nACSO from their respective appointment to
\nthe substantive vacancies within their
\nquota in accordance with the Rule 16(7) of
\nthe AFHQ Rules and Schedule III of the
\nRules.  In the case of promotees ACSO, the
\nlength of continuous officiation in the
\ngrade will be determined from the date
\nwhen they are promoted in substantive
\nvacancies in their lawful quota.  In case of
\ndirect recruits ACSO, their seniority shall
\nbe determined from the year in which they
\njoined the service.  While determining
\nseniority, respondents are directed to
\nadhere to the DPC year in case of promotee
\nofficer and to retain as 1st October to 30th
\nof September of the following year as
\nprovided in the rules\/regulations.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tRespondents are further directed to
\nprepare single Select List in a year for the
\nACSO grade and they cannot report to two
\nseparate lists for the purpose of merely
\nidentifying the Note (2) Schedule III
\nvacancies as the rules do not envisage the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tRespondents are further directed that the
\nvacancies of DR quota may be carried
\nforward but while determining the
\nseniority the slots of the vacancies left
\nunfilled by the DR quota shall not be
\ncarried forward for the purpose of
\ndetermining seniority.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tIt is further directed that after finalizing
\nthe seniority list, the department shall
\nprepare eligibility lists for the purpose of
\npromotion to the next higher grade.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tThese directions may be implemented
\nwithin a period of 6 months from the date
\nof receipt of a copy of this order.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the AFHQ (DRs)
\nCivil Service Officers’ Association filed Writ Petition No. 4058
\nof 2002, the Union of India filed separate Writ Petition No.
\n5396\/2002 and some of the Departmental Promotees ACSOs,
\nnamely, Shri K.S. Dhingra and Smt. Ammini Rajan, filed W.P.
\nNos. 4458\/2002 and 62\/2003 respectively, whereas AFHQ
\nCivil Services Officers filed C.W.P. No. 18073\/2005 in the High
\nCourt of Delhi.  The Division Bench of the High Court allowed
\nthe Writ Petition Nos. 4058\/2002 and 5396\/2002 by an order
\ndated 14.11.2006 and set aside the order dated 01.04.2002
\nrecorded by the Tribunal in OA No. 1356\/1997 with further
\ndirection to the respondentUnion of India to determine the
\nissue of seniority in accordance with the judgment of the
\nTribunal in TA No. 356\/1985 dated 20th November, 1992.
\nC.W.P. No. 62\/2003 and C.W.P. No. 4458\/2002 filed by the
\nDPs were dismissed and CWP No.18073\/2005 was disposed of
\non 15.01.2007 on the basis of direction in the above-said writ
\npetitions.  These appeals, therefore, arise from the said
\njudgments and orders of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe case of the parties is that prior to the year 1968, the
\nAFHQ Civil Services were governed by the executive
\ninstructions as there were no statutory rules governing the
\nservice.  On 1st March 1968, the Armed Forces Headquarters
\nCivil Service Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the
\nRules”) were framed, wherein the services are classified in the
\nfollowing Grades:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tSenior Administrative Grade\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tDirector\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tSelection Grade (Senior Civil Staff Officer\/Joint
\nDirector)\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tCivil Staff Officer\/Deputy Director\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tAssistant Civilian Staff Officer\/Section Officer
\n(initially designated as Superintendent)\n<\/p>\n
\t(f)\tAssistant<\/p>\n
Rule 16 of the said Rules deals with the seniority, which
\nprovides that the relative seniority of the direct recruit and
\npromotees shall be regulated in accordance with the
\nprovisions made in this behalf in the Third Schedule.  As per
\nthe Third Schedule of the Rules, all temporary vacancies in the
\ngrade of ACSO shall be filled by temporary promotion from
\namongst the Assistants by the method of selection.  The Third
\nSchedule further provides that substantive appointment to
\n75% of the substantive vacancies shall be made in order of
\nseniority of the temporary officers of the grade, who have
\ncompleted the period of probation subject to the rejection of
\nunfit.  25% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by
\nthe direct recruit through Civil Service Examination conducted
\nby UPSC.  As per Note (2) of Third Schedule, unfilled vacancies
\nof DR quota may be filled temporarily by promotion from
\namongst Assistants by selection method.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAggrieved by the Seniority List of 1977 published by the
\nDepartment, which was based on the principle of ante-dated
\nseniority in respect of ACSOs (DR), some of the ACSOs (DP)
\nfiled Writ Petition No. 3\/1978 titled as M.G. Bansal & Ors. v.
\nUnion of India & Ors. in the High Court of Delhi inter alia
\npraying for the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tRespondents have misapplied,
\nmisconstrued and misinterpreted Rule 16(7) as
\nwell as Third Schedule particularly Note (2),
\nwhich violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe Quota Rule has been applied
\ndiscriminately without having regard to the
\napproved service.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhen the direct recruits were inducted in
\nthe service, they were placed above
\ndepartmental promotees who had been
\npromoted much earlier.  The said placing in the
\nseniority list was done irrespective of the date of
\nappointment of the direct recruits and they
\ncould not be positioned higher than the
\nDepartmental Promotees.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAfter the constitution of the Central Administrative
\nTribunal in the year 1985, the writ petition was transferred to
\nthe Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 356\/1985.  The
\nTribunal by its order dated 2nd June, 1989 disposed of the said
\npetition holding that the quota prescribed in the Rules has not
\nbroken down and the seniority between the direct recruits and
\npromotees regularly appointed\/promoted within their
\nrespective quota should be determined by the length of the
\ncontinuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs from their
\nrespective appointment to the substantive vacancies under
\nThird Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
10.    It appears from the record that on 8th November 1989,
\nthe Union of India and some DR Officers filed two Special
\nLeave Petitions before this Court against the order of the
\nTribunal dated 2nd June 1989.  This Court by its order dated
\n20th July 1991 held that the CAT had decided the controversy
\nwithout adverting to the Rules applicable to the service,
\nparticularly Note (2) in the Third Schedule and the matter
\nmust, therefore, be decided afresh.  Pursuant to the order of
\nthis Court, the CAT again decided M.G. Bansal’s case (supra)
\nby an order dated 20th November 1992 in the following
\nmanner:-\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tIt is held that Rule 16(7) and Schedule
\nThird so far as it relates to appointment of
\nthe promotees and Direct Recruits in their
\nrespective quota and determination of
\nseniority on the basis of quota and rota is
\nheld valid and these are not ultra vires of
\nArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tSeniority between Direct Recruits and
\nPromotees regularly appointed\/promoted
\nwithin their respective quota should be
\ndetermined by the length of the continuous
\nofficiation in the grade of ACSO from their
\nrespective appointment to the substantive
\nvacancies under Schedule II within their
\nquota, i.e., in the case of promotee ACSOs
\nthe length of continuous officiation in the
\ngrade will be reckoned from the date when
\nthey are promoted in substantive
\nvacancies.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tTo elucidate further, in the case of
\ntemporarily appointed promotee ACSOs
\nunder Note (2) of Schedule III of the rules
\nin the direct recruit quota w.e.f. 1969
\nonwards till 1977 and also thereafter their
\nseniority will be reckoned from the date
\nwhen they get a berth in the substantive
\nvacancies of their 75% quota as envisaged
\nunder Schedule III of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThe incumbents belonging to one source in
\nexcess of their own quota and utilizing the
\nquota of the incumbents belonging to
\nanother source will only officiate in the
\npromoted post.  It is made clear that the
\ndirect recruits when inducted as nominees
\nof the UPSC, the promotees in the quota of
\nthe direct recruits on the basis of Note (2)
\nof the Rules of Schedule III will either be
\nreverted or will be absorbed in the
\nvacancies within their quota of subsequent
\nyear.  The period of officiation outside their
\nquota of either of their incumbents from
\nother source will not count for their
\nseniority.  If an officer has been promoted
\nwithin his quota, then it would be date of
\nconfirmation which would be relevant for
\nthe officer’s seniority.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tWhen the promotions are made from either
\nof the sources, by direct recruitment or by
\ndepartmental  promotion there shall be
\ndue compliance of the various instructions
\nand office memorandum issued by the
\nDepartment of Personnel and Training on
\nthe reservation of vacancies for SC\/ST and
\ncategories in the proportion directed  in
\nthe said instruction.  The reservation,
\nhowever, shall remain only at the time of
\nappointment and not in the seniority inter
\nse of the Direct Recruits and promotees
\nwhich shall be fixed as laid down in Rule
\n16(7) read with Schedule III and as
\ndirected in the preceding sub-paras above.\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tIt is further directed that each quota, as
\nreferred to in Schedule 3 of the Rules as to
\nbe worked out independently on its own
\nforce.  Direct recruit quota of ACSO which
\nis confined to substantive vacancies in the
\ngrade can be filled by temporarily
\nappointed Assistants by promotion in the
\ngrade of ACSO, but without giving them
\nany right of seniority on the basis of
\ncontinuous officiation on the vacancies
\nearmarked for Direct Recruits and indent
\nfor which has been sent to the UPSC for
\nnomination from the civil services
\nexamination of a particular year.  The
\nhopes and aspirations of the promotees
\naforesaid cannot be related to availability
\nof Direct Recruits filling their quota in that
\nparticular year and only it can be when
\nthere is total collapse and break down of
\nthe quota for a number of years.\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tNone of the parties including the official
\nrespondents have given relevant data as to
\nwhen the actual promotion  of Assistants
\nwere made to the temporary cadre of ACSO
\nin the direct recruit quota under Note (2) of
\nSchedule 3 the official respondents on the
\nother hand have taken the stand in the
\nchart quote in the body of the judgment
\nthat of such vacancies in the direct recruit
\nquota were left unfilled and have been
\nfilled temporarily by the Assistant by
\nmaking departmental promotions and
\nsince the exact number is not coming for
\nthe and also the position whether such
\ndepartmental promotees were absorbed in
\nthe subsequent vacancies within their
\nquota of 75% direct is issued to revise the
\nimpugned seniority list in the light of the
\nobservations made in the above sub-paras
\nwhich shall be made final after hearing the
\nobjections on the same and the petitioners,
\nwho have since retired, shall be entitled to
\nany consequential benefits occasioned on
\naccount of the revision of the seniority list.
\nThe impugned seniority list of 1977 shall
\nstand quashed to that extent.  In the
\ncircumstances, the parties shall bear their
\nown costs.”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe Union of India, in the garb of implementing the
\nabove-said order of the Tribunal in the case of M.G. Bansal,
\nstarted splitting up vacancies from the year 1992 and
\nprepared two separate Select Lists for each year retrospectively
\nfor the grade of ACSOs.  One list was prepared in respect of
\nACSO(DPs) who allegedly were temporarily appointed against
\nthe unfilled vacancies meant for ACSO(DRs) as per Note (2) in
\nthe Third Schedule on the basis of calendar year as against
\noriginally drawn period from 1st October to 30th September
\neach year as provided in the Rules.  It appears that prior to
\nthe implementation of the order in M.G. Bansal’s case, draft
\nSeniority List issued in 1995 was based on the principle of
\ncarrying forward of slots and ACSO(DRs) were being given
\nabout 10 to 15 years ante-dated seniority even when they have
\nnot been holding any office in the service.  Some of the ACSO
\n(DPs), namely, Smt. Ammini Rajan and others filed O.A. No.
\n1356\/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
\nchallenging the redrawn Select List for the years 1988-89 and
\n1989-90 in purported compliance with the directions of M.G.
\nBansal’s case.  The Tribunal by its order dated 1st April, 2002,
\nas noticed above, disposed of the said O.A. with the above-said
\ndirections.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe AFHQ Civil Services (DR Gazetted) Officers’
\nAssociation and others filed O.A. No. 2484\/2004 before the
\nTribunal.  The Tribunal by its order dated 1st September, 2005
\ndismissed the said application holding that there is no
\nillegality in the preparation of Seniority List.  Some of the
\nACSOs(DRs) filed C.W.P. No. 18073\/2005 before the High
\nCourt of Delhi challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 1st
\nSeptember, 2005 which was also allowed by the High Court
\nalong with the above-mentioned writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Shri
\nR. Tanwar, President, AFHQ Civilian Officers’ Association and
\nother parties in-person.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned senior Advocate
\nappearing on behalf of the appellant- AFHQ\/ISOs SOs (DP)
\nAssociation contended that the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt has lost sight of the fact that Rules 16(6) and 16(7) do
\nnot provide carrying forward of slots, which were examined in
\ndetail by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.G. Bansal’s
\ncase.  On the basis of the interpretation of the said Rules, the
\nCAT had fixed the seniority of DR and DP ACSOs based on the
\nlength of continuous officiation and the High Court could not
\nhave reversed the judgment of M.G. Bansal’s case which had
\nattained finality after the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court.  He next contended that in the Smt. Ammini
\nRajan’s case, the main claim was only for the implementation
\nof the order recorded by the CAT in M.G. Bansal’s case and
\nother reliefs were ancillary in substance.  According to the
\nlearned counsel, one of the main issues agitated in the case of
\nM.G.Bansal was that DR ACSOs, who joined later in point of
\ntime, were made seniors to the promotees ACSOs, who were
\nregularly promoted earlier to the DR ACSOs.  The situation
\nhad occurred due to the assignment of antedated seniority,
\ni.e., giving seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy to
\nDR ACSOs and as the Central Government has wrongly
\nimplemented the observations contained in para 25(b) of M.G.
\nBansal’s case, which resulted in filing of the petition by Smt.
\nAmmini Rajan and other DR ACSOs, which came to be decided
\nby the CAT in favour of Smt. Ammini Rajan and others, relying
\nupon the judgment of the CAT in M.G. Bansal’s case.  He also
\ncontended that if the vacant slots of DR vacancies are carried
\nforward, as directed in the impugned judgments of the High
\nCourt, the direct recruits will get an undue advantage of more
\nthan 12 years of ante-dated seniority without holding the
\noffice.  He next submitted that the fundamental principle of
\ndetermination of seniority between direct recruits and
\npromotees regularly appointed\/promoted within their
\nrespective quota should be determined by the length of
\ncontinuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs from their
\nrespective appointment to the substantive vacancies under
\nThird Schedule of the Rules within their quota and the
\nimpugned judgment of the High Court observing in paras 13
\nand 16 to carry forward vacant slots of direct recruits is
\nconflicting with the final judgment of the CAT rendered in M.G.
\nBansal’s case which has directed the fixation of seniority
\nbased on length of continuous officiation of direct recruits and
\npromotees.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tMr. L.N. Rao, learned senior Advocate, resisting the
\naforesaid submissions, argued that the judgment of the High
\nCourt cannot be found faulty on any ground and the seniority
\ninter se between the direct recruits and departmental
\npromotees has to be determined in the ratio as prescribed in
\nthe Third Schedule of the Rules, which deals with the
\nsubstantive vacancies without giving any benefit of length of
\nthe continuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs from the
\nrespective appointment  to the substantive vacancies under
\nSchedule Three to the Rules within their quota.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t  Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned senior Advocate appearing
\non behalf of the respondents-AFHQ Civilian Officers’
\nAssociation and Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned senior
\nAdvocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, have
\nsought to support the judgment of the High Court and
\ncontended that the promotees ACSOs appointed under Note (2)
\nof the Third Schedule cannot get the benefit of continuous
\nofficiation in the grade of ACSOs.   They also submitted that
\nthe seniority of promotees among themselves was determined
\nunder Rule 16(5), i.e. in the order in which they were
\nappointed in substantive vacancies in their quota and the inter
\nse seniority of the DRs among themselves was determined as
\nper the Rule 16(6) in the order of merit in which they were
\nplaced in the competitive examination.  According to the
\nlearned counsel, the actual date of joining in the post had no
\nbearing on fixation of seniority among the promotees and
\ndirect recruits themselves and inter se seniority of DRs and
\nDPs appointed against the substantive vacancies in their own
\nquota was determined on the basis of rotation of vacancies
\nbetween DRs and DPs in the ratio of 75% : 25% without
\nallowing lapsing of vacancies either from DRs or DPs quota.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIn support of the respective contentions, the learned
\ncounsel for the parties have relied upon certain decisions of
\nthis Court, which we shall deal and consider in the later part
\nof the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tAfter a perusal of the facts involved here and having
\nheard the parties at length, we feel that the issues that need to
\nbe addressed by us in this case are:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees
\nregularly appointed\/promoted within their respective quota
\nshould be determined by the length of the continuous
\nofficiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective
\nappointment to the substantive vacancies under Schedule II of
\nthe Rules within their quota, i.e., in the case of promotee
\nACSOs the length of continuous officiation in the grade will be
\nreckoned from the date when they are promoted in substantive
\nvacancies in their quota.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether the incumbents belonging to one source in excess
\nof their own quota and utilizing the quota of the incumbents
\nbelonging to another source will only officiate in the promoted
\npost.  The direct recruits when inducted in service through
\nselection by the UPSC, the promotees in the quota of the direct
\nrecruits on the basis of Note (2) of the Rules of Schedule III will
\neither be reverted or will be absorbed in the vacancies within
\ntheir quota of subsequent year and the period of officiation
\noutside their quota of either of the incumbents from other
\nsource will not count for their seniority.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tFor the purpose of determination of the above-said
\npoints, we may notice the relevant Rules.
\nRule 13 deals with probation, which states that (1) Every
\ndirect recruit shall initially be appointed on probation for two
\nyears from the date of appointment and (2) Every person other
\nthan a direct recruit shall, when appointed to the grade of
\nCSO, ACSO and Assistant, be on probation for a period of two
\nyears from the date of such appointment.  Rule 14 deals with
\nconfirmation of probationers.  The quota between the direct
\nrecruits and the promotees is governed by Rule 16, which
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“16. Seniority:- (1) All permanent offices
\nincluded in the initial constitution of a
\nGrade under Rule 9 shall rank senior to all
\npersons substantively appointed to that
\nGrade with effect from any date after the
\nappointed day, and all temporary officers
\nincluded in the initial constitution of a
\ngrade under that rule shall rank senior to
\nall temporary officers appointed to that
\nGrade with effect from any date after the
\nappointed day.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The seniority inter se of permanent
\nofficers included in the initial constitution
\nof a Grade shall be regulated in the order
\nin which they are so appointed.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The seniority inter se of temporary
\nofficers included in the initial constitution
\nof a Grade shall be regulated in the order
\nin which they are so appointed.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The seniority inter se of officers
\nregularly appointed to the grade of Joint
\nDirector and Senior Civilian Staff Officer
\nbefore the coming into force of the Armed
\nForces Headquarters Civil Service (Second
\nAmendment) Rules, 1975, shall be
\nregulated in the Selection Grade of the
\nService in the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) Officers holding the posts of
\nJoint Directors in an officiating
\ncapacity, arranged in the order of
\ntheir seniority in that Grade;\n<\/p>\n
(b) Officers holding the posts of
\nSenior Civilian Staff Officers in a
\nsubstantive capacity, arranged in
\nthe order of their seniority in that
\nGrade;\n<\/p>\n
(c) Officers holding the posts of
\nSenior Civilian Staff Officers in an
\nofficiating capacity, arranged in the
\norder of their seniority in that
\nGrade;\n<\/p>\n
(5) Except as provided, in sub-rule (7), the
\nseniority of persons appointed to any grade
\nafter the appointed day shall be
\ndetermined in the following manner,
\nnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Permanent Officers.- The
\nseniority inter se of officers
\nsubstantively appointed to the
\nGrade after the appointed day shall
\nbe regulated in the order in which
\nthey are so appointed;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Temporary Officers.- The
\nseniority inter se of temporary
\nofficers appointed to the Grade
\nafter the appointed day shall be
\nregulated in the order of their
\nselection for such promotion.\n<\/p>\n
(6) Direct recruits shall be ranked inter se
\nin the order of merit in which they are
\nplaced at a competitive examination on the
\nresults of which they are recruited, the
\nrecruits of an earlier examination being
\nranked senior to those of a later
\nexamination.  On confirmation, their inter
\nse seniority shall be regulated in the order
\nin which they are so confirmed :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the seniority of persons
\nrecruited through the competitive
\nexaminations held by the Commission\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tin whose case offers of
\nappointment are revived after
\nbeing cancelled, or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\twho are not initially
\nappointed for valid reasons but are
\nappointed after the appointment of
\ncandidates recruited on the basis
\nof the results of the subsequent
\nexamination or examinations,
\nshall be such as may be determined by the
\nGovernment in consultation with the
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
(7) The relative seniority of the direct
\nrecruits to a Grade and persons appointed
\nto the Grade by departmental promotion
\nshall be regulated in accordance with the
\nprovisions made in this behalf in the Third
\nSchedule.\n<\/p>\n
(8) All officers substantively appointed to
\nany Grade shall rank senior to those
\nholding temporary or officiating
\nappointments in that Grade.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tRule 2(p) defines “temporary officer” to mean a person
\nholding a temporary or officiating appointment in that Grade
\non the basis of his being regularly approved for such
\nappointment.  Rule 2(l) defines “permanent officer” to mean a
\nperson who has been substantively appointed to a substantive
\nvacancy in that grade.  Rule 10 provides for future
\nmaintenance of the service which states that the service shall
\nbe maintained in future as indicated in the Third Schedule.
\nThird Schedule of the Rules in relation to ACSO (Group ‘B’
\nGazetted) reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Substantive vacancies\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tSubstantive appointments to 75% of
\nsubstantive vacancies in the Grade shall
\nbe made in the order of seniority of
\ntemporary officers of the Grade, who have
\ncompleted the period of probation
\nsatisfactorily, subject to the rejection of
\nthe unfit.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\t25% of the substantive vacancies
\nshall be filled by direct recruitment on
\nthe basis of combined competitive
\nexamination held by the Commission for
\nrecruitment to the Central Services,
\nGroup ‘A’\/Group ‘B’, Assistant Civilian
\nStaff Officers so recruited shall be
\nconfirmed in the manner as indicated in
\nRule 14.\n<\/p>\n
The relative seniority of the above
\ncategories of officers shall be determined
\naccording to the rotation of vacancies
\nbetween departmental promotees and
\ndirect recruits which shall be based on
\nthe quotas of vacancies reserved for
\npromotion and direct recruitment.\n<\/p>\n
Note (1) Reservation of vacancies
\nagainst the quota reserved for direct
\nrecruitment, for Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes and released
\nEmergency Commissioned Officers and
\nShort Service Regular Commissioned
\nOfficers shall be in accordance with the
\nrules and orders issued by the
\nGovernment from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tSubstantive vacancies at (b) may be
\nfilled temporarily by promotion from
\namongst Assistants on the basis of
\nselection.  Such promotions shall be
\nterminated when the nominees of the
\nCommission become available to fill
\nthe substantive vacancies.”\n<\/p>\n
Temporary Vacancies
\nTemporary vacancies in the Grade of
\nAssistant Civilian Staff Officer shall be filled
\nby temporary promotion from amongst
\nAssistants on the basis of selection.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that if any person in the Grade of
\nAssistants is considered for promotion to
\nthe Grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officer,
\nall persons belonging to Scheduled Castes
\nor Scheduled Tribes who are senior to him
\nin that Grade, shall also be considered
\nnotwithstanding that they may not have
\nrendered five years’ continuous approved
\nservice in that grade.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tOn a plain reading of the above-extracted provisions of
\nThird Schedule, it is clear that substantive vacancies to the
\nextent of 75% shall be made in the order of seniority of
\ntemporary officers of the Grade, who have completed the
\nperiod of probation successfully and 25% of the substantive
\nvacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of
\nqualifying Combined Competitive Examination held by the
\nCommission for recruitment to the Central Services, Group ‘A’
\n\/Group ‘B’.  The relative seniority of the above categories of
\nofficers shall be determined according to the rotation of
\nvacancies between departmental promotees appointed to the
\nsubstantive posts and direct recruits which shall be based on
\nthe quota of vacancies reserved for each source.  Note (2)
\nunder the Third Schedule of the Rules provides that
\n“substantive vacancies” meant for direct recruits may be filled
\ntemporarily by promotion from amongst Assistants on the
\nbasis of selection, but such promotions shall be terminated
\nwhen the nominees of the Commission become available to fill
\nthe substantive vacancies in 25% quota.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t In the teeth of the relevant Rules governing the relative
\nseniority inter se between DRs and DPs under Rule 16 and
\nsubstantive appointments of ACSOs in the ratio of 75% under
\nclause (a) and appointments of direct recruits to the Central
\nServices Group ‘A’ \/ Group ‘B’ in the ratio of 25% as provided
\nin clause (b), the seniority list is required to be maintained by
\nthe authority.\n<\/p>\n
23.   The seniority list of 1977 circulated by the respondent-
\nUnion of India inter se the DRs and DPs was under challenge
\nbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
\nNew Delhi, in T.A. No.356\/85 (C.W. 3\/78) titled Shri M.G.
\nBansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which was decided on
\n20.11.1992.  In the said petition, Union of India had
\nsubmitted a Tabular Statement showing details of substantive
\nvacancies in the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers and
\nfrom the perusal of the Chart, the Tribunal observed that
\nevery time the vacancies were calculated and a requisition was
\nsent to the UPSC for sending nominees for appointment as
\ndirect recruits in the ratio  15% SC, 7.5% ST and 25%
\nreleased emergency commission officers of the total number of
\nvacancies.  The Tribunal has found that all the direct recruits,
\nwho were nominated by the UPSC, did not join in that
\nparticular year.  Before the Tribunal, the case of the
\nInterveners was that the quota has lapsed and cannot be
\ncarried forward, whereas the case of the direct recruits was
\nthat the quota rule had broken down as direct recruitments
\nhad not been made for many years and on account of such
\nfailure, fixation of seniority with reference to the rotational
\nmethod was not available to be followed.  The Tribunal, on
\nperusal of the Chart made available to it by the Union of India,
\nobserved that since 1969 till 1977 in each of the year, direct
\nrecruits have joined the service, though in lesser number.  In
\n1969, 10 direct recruits joined against the quota of 32; in
\n1970, 3 direct recruits joined against 13 vacancies; whereas in
\nthe year 1971, 11 direct recruits joined against 16 vacancies,
\nwhereas in the year 1972, 16 direct recruits joined against 9
\nvacancies and in the year 1973, 8 direct recruits joined
\nagainst 19 vacancies.  Similarly, in the year 1974, against 20
\nvacancies only 13 direct recruits joined the service; in 1975,
\n29 direct recruits joined against 19 vacancies; in 1976, 17
\ndirect recruits joined against 25 vacancies and in the year
\n1977, 23 direct recruits joined against 14 vacancies.  Thus,
\nthere was a shortfall of direct recruits in joining the service in
\ntheir quota excepting in the years 1972 and 1975 where
\npersons in excess have joined than the earmarked quota as
\nper the rules.  It was a specific case of the DPs before the
\nTribunal that no substantive\/temporary vacancy was kept
\nunfilled and these were filled by promoting Assistants on
\nofficiation temporary basis in accordance with the provisions
\nof the Rules.  Thus, there has been no break down of the
\nquota.  The quota also to some extent was not filled up to the
\nextent it was desired though UPSC has recommended
\nsufficient number of direct recruits, but because of certain
\nfacts, all of them did not join for the reasons best known to
\nthem.  The record would also show that the Union of India
\nhave carried forward the unfilled vacancies of direct recruits to
\nthe next year.  The Chart would further show that in the year
\nbetween 1968 and 1974, the direct recruits vacancies were 87
\nin the ratio of 25% in terms of the rules and the vacancies
\nintimated to UPSC were 132.  The UPSC nominated 126
\ncandidates, but 48 candidates actually joined the service.
\nThus, taking all these facts into account, the Tribunal has
\nrightly observed that there cannot be a case where the quota
\nhas broken down; rather this is a case of distortion of the
\nquota.  Note (2) to the Third Schedule referred to above
\nmandates that substantive vacancies at (b) may be filled
\ntemporarily by promotion from amongst Assistants on the
\nbasis of selection.  Such promotion shall be terminated when
\nthe nominees of the Commission would become available to fill
\nthe substantive vacancy.  In the AFHQ Civil Service,
\npromotions were made against direct recruit vacancies after
\nthe vacancies had been notified to the Public Commission.
\nThe promotions were temporary and the promotees were given
\nseniority in accordance with Rule 16.5(ii) and after completing
\ntheir probation, they were confirmed only when substantive
\nvacancies were found available in their quota.  The inter se
\nseniority was, therefore, only between substantive vacancy
\npromotees and substantive direct recruits.  All promotee
\nsubstantive ACSOs were assigned seniority under Rule 16(1),
\nwhereas all direct recruits were assigned seniority under Rule
\n16.6.  Thereafter, these two seniority lists of substantive
\nofficers from the two sources of recruitment are integrated
\nunder Rule 16.7, i.e. in accordance with the well-known
\nprinciple of quota rota rule.  Thus, it is evident that the late
\ninduction of the direct recruits does not interfere with the
\nseniority of the promotee officers under Rule 16.5.\n<\/p>\n
24.    Further, Note (2) to the Third Schedule is to be read with
\nRule 11.1 of the Rules and the Regulations made thereunder
\nso that substantive vacancies shall be intimated to UPSC well
\nwithin time.  Note (2) is an enabling provision insofar as it
\npermits the Government to fill the vacancies temporarily
\nthrough selection.  There is a mandate in Note (2) that these
\npromotions will be terminated when the direct recruits would
\njoin the post.  Thus, by the time the direct recruit had come or
\nis likely to come, such a promotee who happens to occupy a
\nberth of the direct recruit by virtue of Note (2) to Schedule
\nThird will normally, because of his seniority, get a berth in his
\nown quota.  The order of the Tribunal shows that the
\napplicants and the interveners, however, could not furnish any
\ndata to show that the promotees, who are occupying the berth
\nof direct recruits under Note (2) temporarily, were
\nsubsequently got adjusted in the prescribed quota of
\ndepartmental promotees against the substantive vacancies.
\nOn perusal, we find that no time-limit is prescribed in Note (2)
\nduring which such temporarily promoted Assistants to the
\ngrade of ACSOs in the quota of direct recruits can enjoy that
\nbenefit.  Note (2) only provides that whenever direct recruits
\nbecome available, the appointment of such promotees shall
\nstand terminated.  No other interpretation of Note (2) can be
\npossible.  Note (2) to the Third Schedule safeguards the
\ninterest of the direct recruits, who though are successful in
\nthe Civil Service Examination conducted by the UPSC and yet
\nare waiting for their appointment as the appointment of the
\ndirect recruits is bound to take some time.  Merely because
\nthere is late arrival of direct recruits, the quota reserved for
\nthem cannot be taken as lapsed nor can it be taken to have led
\nto break down of the quota rule.  The relevant rules, as
\nreferred to above, clearly envisage that the continuous
\nofficiation in a service without break also gives the benefit of
\nseniority, but in a case where the recruitment is from two
\nsources and the quota is prescribed, then the person from one
\nsource cannot take the benefit available to the other source
\nwithin the quota.  Thus, promotees who have been promoted
\nwithin their quota of 75%  under the rules as prescribed under
\nThird Schedule read with  Rule 16(7) of the Rules would get
\nthe benefit of continuous officiation from the date of their
\nsubstantive appointment to the grade of availability of a
\nsubstantive post and after having worked on temporary basis
\nin the grade.  Those who have been appointed temporarily
\nunder Note (2) from the cadre of Assistants to the grade of
\nAssistant Civilian Officers temporarily, would not get the
\nbenefit of their continuous officiation and shall be liable by
\noperation of law to be reverted or there shall be deemed
\nreversion when the nominees from the UPSC would join on the
\nrecommendations of the UPSC.  Such temporary officers may
\nnot actually face reversion because by the time the vacancies
\nof the next year may become available in their quota of 75%
\nand they can very well, by virtue of their seniority, earn the
\nbenefit of substantive appointment under the Third Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t Now, coming to the issue whether the High Court was
\njustified in granting relief to DRs Association in CWP No.4058
\nof 2002 and Union of India v. Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. in Writ
\nPetition (C) No.5396 of 2002 by overlooking and not properly
\nappreciating the substance of the order recorded by the CAT in
\nShri M.G. Bansal’s case.  The High Court, by its impugned
\norder dated 14.11.2006, has held that the order of the Central
\nAdministrative Tribunal in Smt.Ammini Rajan’s case is
\ncontrary to its earlier decision dated 20.11.1992 passed in
\nM.G. Bansal’s case.  The High Court directed the issue of
\nseniority to be determined as it was done prior to Smt. Ammini
\nRajan’s case was decided by the Tribunal.  The High Court
\nfurther held that the direction of the CAT where it is held that
\nthe seniority of DRs should be determined from the date of
\njoining and further that the unfilled vacancies and not the
\nslots can be carried forward, is contradictory to the decision of
\nthe CAT in M.G. Bansal’s case.  We are afraid to agree with the
\nreasoning of the High Court.  If such reasoning of the High
\nCourt is accepted, the consequences would be that the draft
\nseniority list of ACSOs would be taken as it stood on
\n01.05.1995, which was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.
\nfiled by Smt. Ammini Rajan and others as the draft seniority list
\nwas not settled in terms of the decision of the CAT in M.G.
\nBansal’s case, which admittedly has attained finality.  The
\njudgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the
\nTribunal in Smt. Ammini Rajan’s case would plainly amount to
\ninterference with the decision of the CAT in M.G. Bansal’s case
\nand further if the order of the High Court is given effect to, the
\nresult thereof would be that the DRs. shall be permitted to
\ntake advantage of more than 12 years of ante-dated seniority
\nwithout holding an office.  The petition filed by Smt. Ammini
\nRajan was primarily seeking implementation of the earlier
\ndecision of the CAT in Shri M.G. Bansal’s case.  On bare
\nexamination of the decision of the CAT rendered in Smt.
\nAmmini Rajan’ case, we find no discrepancy, no contradiction
\nor overlapping or inconsistency whatsoever in the said order
\nas compared to the earlier decision of the CAT in Shri M.G.
\nBansal’s case.  Therefore, the order of the High Court, in our
\nview, is erroneous as the High Court has committed an error
\nin understanding and appreciating the gist of the order
\nrecorded by the CAT in Smt. Ammini Rajan’s case.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tMr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned senior Advocate
\nappearing on behalf of the appellant-AFHQ\/ISOs SOs (DP)
\nAssociation, in support of his submissions, placed reliance
\nupon the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J & K
\n& Ors.<\/a> [(2000) 7 SCC 561].  In the said case, this Court while
\ndealing with a situation of giving direct recruitment
\nappointment ante-dated from the date of occurrence of a
\nvacancy in the direct recruitment quota, even if on that date
\nthe said person was not directly recruited.  The Court, in
\nanswer to Point No.4, held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Point 4
\nDirect recruits cannot claim appointment
\nfrom date of vacancy in quota before their
\nselection\n<\/p>\n
80. We have next to refer to one other
\ncontention raised by the respondent
\ndirect recruits. They claimed that the
\ndirect recruitment appointment can be
\nante-dated from the date of occurrence of
\na vacancy in the direct recruitment
\nquota, even if on that date the said
\nperson was not directly recruited. It was
\nsubmitted that if the promotees occupied
\nthe quota belonging to direct recruits
\nthey had to be pushed down, whenever
\ndirect recruitment was made. Once they
\nwere so pushed down, even if the direct
\nrecruit came later, he should be put in
\nthe direct recruit slot from the date on
\nwhich such a slot was available under the
\ndirect recruitment quota.\n<\/p>\n
81. This contention, in our view, cannot
\nbe accepted. The reason as to why this
\nargument is wrong is that in service
\njurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim
\nseniority only from the date of his regular
\nappointment. He cannot claim seniority
\nfrom a date when he was not borne in the
\nservice. This principle is well settled. In
\nN.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 14 (SCC
\nat p.   325, para 32) Krishna Iyer, J.\n<\/p>\n
stated:\n<\/p>\n
Later direct recruits cannot claim
\ndeemed dates of appointment for
\nseniority with effect from the time
\nwhen direct recruitment vacancy
\narose. Seniority will depend upon
\nlength of service.\n<\/p>\n
Again, in A. Janardhana v. Union of India<\/a>
\n25 it was held that a later direct recruit
\ncannot claim seniority from a date before
\nhis birth in the service or when he was in
\nschool or college. Similarly it was pointed
\nout in A.N. Pathak v. Secy. to the Govt.\n<\/p>\n
(SCC at p. 767) that slots cannot be kept
\nreserved for direct recruits for
\nretrospective appointments.”\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIn State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma<\/a>
\n[(2007) 1 SCC 683], this Court has clearly held that the
\nseniority is to be reckoned not from the date when the vacancy
\narose, but from the date on which the appointment is made to
\nthe post.\n<\/p>\n
28.   In M. Subba Reddy & Anr., etc. v. A. P. State Road
\nTransport Corporation & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 729], relied upon
\nby Mr. L. N. Rao, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf
\nof AFHQ Civil Service (Direct Recruits-Gazetted) Officers’
\nAssociation, this Court while dealing with inter se seniority
\nbetween direct recruits and promotees to the posts of
\nAssistant Traffic Manager (for short “ATM”) and Assistant
\nMechanical Engineer (for short “AME”) in A.P. State Road
\nTransport Corporation, held that rota rule is inbuilt in the
\nquota prescribed in Item 3, Annexure ‘A’ (Section B) to A.P.
\nSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and could
\nnot be deviated from.  In that case, the appellant promotees
\nwere promoted to the posts of ATMs\/AMEs temporarily under
\nRegulation 30 as there were no direct recruits available.  They
\nwere promoted subject to being reverted to substantive posts
\non approved candidates becoming available.  Regulation 34(6)
\nstates that the revertees shall subsequently be considered for
\nrepromotion against the quota of vacancies reserved for
\npromotees.  Therefore, one has to read Regulation 3 of the A.P.
\nSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 with Regulations
\n30 and 34 of the Recruitment Regulations.  It is only when
\nsuch revertees are repromoted as per Regulation 34, they can
\nbe deemed to have been appointed to the posts of ATM or
\nAME. Therefore, when the appellants were tentatively
\nappointed to the post of ATMs\/AMEs originally for want of
\ndirect recruits and to the posts reserved for direct recruits, it
\ncannot be said that they were first appointed to that category
\nwithin the meaning of Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations.
\nTherefore, seniority had to be fixed between the direct recruits
\nand the promotees strictly in accordance with the quota
\nprovided for in Item 3 of Annexure ‘A’ (Section B).   The said
\nRegulations prescribe a quota of 1:1, which leads to rota for
\nconfirmation.  The contention of the appellants before this
\nCourt was that they had a right to be promoted within their
\nquota during the years 1981 to 1987, when vacancies for
\npromotees’ quota became available.  M. Subba Reddy,
\nappellant in that case, was regularized from 27.12.1986 vide
\norder dated 9.9.1988, when no direct recruits were available
\nand, therefore, it was improper for the Corporation to place
\ndirect recruits above the promotees.  The appellant submitted
\nthat in such a case the quota in Item 3(1) of Annexure ‘A’ to
\nthe Recruitment Rules would not apply; that the said item
\nprescribed only quota and not rota for seniority and that the
\ndirect recruits could not claim appointment from the date of
\nvacancy in their quota before their selecton.  They added that
\nseniority was dealt with only by Regulation 3 of the Service
\nRegulations, 1964 and not by Regulation 34 of the
\nRecruitment Regulations, 1966.  That in view of the 15.9.1995
\namendment, Regulation 34 referred to only allocation of
\nvacancy and not for determination of seniority.  A total ban for
\ndirect recruitment was imposed by the State from the year
\n1977 to 1988 and, thus, the purported quota-and-rota rule
\ncontained in Item 3 of Annexure ‘A’ could not have been given
\neffect to.  The majority view of this Court was that where there
\nis inaction on the part of the Government or employer or
\nimposed ban on direct recruitment in filling up the posts
\nmeant for direct recruits, it cannot be held that the quota has
\nbroken down. We, with respect, do not support the view of the
\nlearned Judges that in the facts and circumstances of the case
\nthe quota has not broken down because of inaction on the
\npart of the Government in imposing ban in filling up the posts
\nmeant for direct recruits.  The appellants in the said case were
\npromoted in a regular manner having been regularized in
\nservice with retrospective effect.  Their services were not
\nregularized from the date of their initial ad hoc promotion but
\nwith effect from the date when the vacancies became available.
\nTheir services after regularization would not be by way of a
\nstop-gap arrangement. The direct recruits who were appointed
\nin the years 1990 and 1991, in terms of Item 3 of Annexure ‘A’
\nwould be considered to have been appointed only after their
\nsuccessful completion of training.  They were borne in the
\ncadre in the years 1990-91 and, thus, prior thereto they
\ncannot claim seniority.  The learned third Judge, dissenting
\nwith the learned two Judges, has held that the direct recruit
\ncan claim seniority from the date of his regular appointment,
\nhe cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not borne
\nin the service.  Thus, the direct recruits of 1990 and 1991, by
\nreason of the impugned seniority list, could not have been
\nplaced over and above the appellants-promotees because the
\npurported quota and rota rule contained in Item 3 of Annexure
\n‘A’ could not have been given effect to because the State
\nGovernment had imposed total ban for direct recruitment from
\nthe year 1977 to 1988.  In such a situation, the said quota
\nrule became inoperative.  We agree with the dissenting view of
\nthe learned Judge that in the facts of the case, the quota rule
\nbecame inoperative because the direct recruits were borne in
\nthe cadre when they were appointed against the vacancies
\nmeant for them.  Therefore, the majority view in M. Subba
\nReddy & Anr., etc. (supra) is of no assistance to the AFHQ Civil
\nService (Direct Recruits) Officers Association as the relative
\nseniority between the direct recruits and regularly appointed\/
\npromoted candidates within their respective quota, in the
\npresent case, shall be determined by the length of the
\ncontinuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their
\nrespective appointment to the substantive vacancies in terms
\nof Schedule Third within their quota as held by the CAT in
\nM.G. Bansal’s case, which has attained finality after dismissal
\nof the SLPs filed against the said order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
29.     Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned senior Advocate appearing
\non behalf of some of the respondents, in support of his
\nsubmissions, has placed reliance upon the case of   O.P. Singla
\n& Anr., etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 450] inter
\nalia contending that for determining an equitable rule of
\nseniority between direct recruits and promotees, attempt must
\nbe made to minimise, as far as possible, the inequities and
\ndisparities in terms of the rota-quota rule which has broken
\ndown in this case.  In the said case, this Court has held that
\nthe seniority of DRs and Promotees appointed under the
\nrelevant rules must be determined according to the dates of
\nwhich direct recruits were appointed to their respective posts
\nand the dates from which the promotees have been officiating
\ncontinuously either in temporary posts created in the service
\nor in substantive vacancies to which they were appointed in a
\ntemporary capacity.  The said decision, in our view, is of no
\nassistance to the contesting parties represented by Mr. Rakesh
\nKhanna, learned senior counsel, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the present cases.\n<\/p>\n
30.      In Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab & Ors.<\/a> [(2006)
\n6 SCC 673], relied upon by Mr. Siddarth Dave, Advocate, the
\nissue before this Court related to the inter-relation between
\nRules 18 and 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive
\nBranch) (Class I) Rules, 1976.  On consideration of the factual
\nsituation of the case and the rules governing the services of
\nthe employees, this Court said that rota and quota must
\nnecessarily be reflected in the seniority list and any seniority
\nlist prepared in violation of rota and quota is bound to be
\nnegated.  The Court found in the said case that the action of
\nthe respondents in determining the seniority is clearly in total
\ndisregard of rota-quota rule prescribed in Rule 18 of the 1976
\nRules and, therefore, writ of mandamus was issued to the
\nrespondents directing them to prepare the seniority list of the
\nappellants who belong to the PCS (EB) in accordance with
\nRule 18 and read with Rule 21 of the 1976 Rules by fixing
\nseniority according to the roster prescribed under Rule 18 of
\nthe 1976 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
31.    In Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.<\/a> [1987
\nSuppl. 207] relied upon by Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, learned
\nsenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, this
\nCourt held that the quota rules has to be strictly enforced and
\nit is not open to the authorities to meddle with it on the
\nground of administrative exigencies.  Further, in that case the
\nscheme in force relating to the services for fixing inter se
\nseniority took into account the filling up of the vacancies in
\nthe service from the two sources on the basis of the quota and
\nfixation of inter se seniority in the gradation list has to be
\nworked out on the basis of quota.  There cannot be any doubt
\nor quarrel to the well-settled law that inter se seniority
\nbetween direct recruits and promotees should be fixed on the
\nbasis of quota-and-rota rule\/instructions governing the service
\nconditions of the employees.\n<\/p>\n
32.\t  In the light of the above factual situation, service rules
\ngoverning the conditions of service of employees and the
\nsettled proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the
\njudgment and order dated 14.11.2006 in C.W.P.
\nNo.4058\/2002, CWP No.5396\/2002 and subsequent judgment
\ndated 15.01.2007 in CWP No.18073\/2005 of the High Court of
\nDelhi passed in AFHQ Civil Service Officers Association v.
\nUnion of India & Ors.<\/a> are not sustainable and deserve to be set
\naside to the extent of setting aside the order of the Tribunal in
\nSmt. Ammini Rajan’s case holding that the said order is
\ncontrary to the earlier judgment of the CAT dated 20.11.1992
\nrecorded in M.G. Bansal’s case.  This view of the High Court
\napparently appears to be contrary and contradictory to the
\njudgment and order of the CAT dated 20.11.1992 passed in
\nT.A. No.356\/1985 (CW 3\/1978) titled Shri M.G. Bansal & Ors.
\nv. Union of India & Ors. in which the impugned seniority list of
\n1977 stood quashed and the respondent(s)-authority were
\ndirected to implement the said judgment in terms of the
\nobservations\/directions contained in paragraph 25 of the said
\njudgment.  The judgment of the CAT in M.G. Bansal’s case has
\nattained finality when two SLPs filed by the DRs against the
\nsaid judgment came to be dismissed by this Court on
\n20.01.1995. Consequently, the Writ Petition CWP
\nNo.4058\/2002 of the AFHQ Civil Service (Direct Recruits-
\nGazetted) Officers’ Association and CWP No.5396\/2002
\npreferred by Union of India against the order of the CAT in OA
\nNo.1356\/1997 titled Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of
\nIndia & Ors. are dismissed.  CWP No.62\/2003 and CWP
\nNo.4458\/2002 filed by the DPs shall stand allowed
\naccordingly.  CWP No.18073\/2005 shall also stand disposed of
\nin terms of this judgment.  As the dispute and controversy
\nrelating to inter se seniority between the DPs and DRs has
\nremained unsettled and is lingering over the past many years,
\nthe respondent-authority is directed to determine and settle
\nthe seniority list in strict compliance and spirit of the
\njudgment of the CAT dated 20.11.1992 in TA No.356\/1985
\n(CW 3\/1978) rendered in Shri M.G. Bansal & Ors. v. Union of
\nIndia & Ors.   The directions so contained in the said judgment
\nshall be carried out within three months from the date of this
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
33.\t For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed to
\nthe extent indicated above. However, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their
\nown costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 Author: L S Panta Bench: H. K. Sema, Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1384 of 2008 PETITIONER: AFHQ\/ISOs SOs (DP) Association & Ors RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors DATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAfhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Afhq\\\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":8789,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Afhq\\\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Afhq\\\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008"},"wordCount":8789,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008","name":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T03:46:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/afhqisos-sos-dp-association-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Afhq\/Isos Sos (Dp) Association & … vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133978"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133978\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}