2009 (8) TMI 1234 - HC - Indian Laws

Ad hoc stenographers denied seniority over regular stenographers. Tribunal's decision quashed.

Anil Kumar Sehgal, J.V. Trinidade and Ors. and Ors. and Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Versus Smt. Anita Vinayak and Ors., Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Anil Kumar Sehgal, J.V. Trinidade and Ors. and Ors. and Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Versus Smt. Anita Vinayak and Ors., Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of ad hoc appointments and their regularization.2. Seniority dispute between ad hoc stenographers and regularly selected stenographers.3. Competency of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur in regularizing ad hoc stenographers.4. Limitation and timeliness of the Original Applications filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Ad Hoc Appointments and Their Regularization:The petitioners argued that their appointments in the Income Tax Department were regular due to the acute shortage of stenographers in 1977-78 and subsequent permission from the CBDT to recruit on an ad hoc basis. They claimed regularization based on their confirmation orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984, and the inability of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to provide candidates. However, the respondents contended that the appointments were explicitly ad hoc, as per the appointment letters, and subject to termination upon availability of SSC-selected candidates. The Court noted that the SSC was functioning since 1976 and had conducted examinations in 1977 and 1978, thus refuting the petitioners' claim of SSC's inactivity until 1982. The Court held that the ad hoc appointments could not be deemed regular without passing the Special Qualifying Examination (SQE), as mandated by the Department of Personnel and Training.2. Seniority Dispute Between Ad Hoc Stenographers and Regularly Selected Stenographers:The petitioners claimed seniority over the regularly selected stenographers based on their earlier ad hoc appointments. The respondents argued that the ad hoc appointments were temporary and did not confer seniority over those selected through SSC. The Court emphasized that seniority could not be granted to ad hoc employees who did not pass the SQE. The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Jagdeep Singh, which held that appointments beyond the authority's competence do not confer valid status. Consequently, the Court ruled that the ad hoc stenographers could not be placed above the regularly selected stenographers in the seniority list.3. Competency of CBDT and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur in Regularizing Ad Hoc Stenographers:The petitioners argued that their regularization was approved by the CBDT and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. The respondents countered that these authorities were not competent to regularize ad hoc appointments without following the prescribed rules. The Court found no evidence of any rule empowering these authorities to regularize ad hoc appointments without the SSC's involvement or the SQE. The Court concluded that the CBDT's decision to regularize the ad hoc stenographers was not legally justified and quashed the orders dated 22.9.1998 and 13.10.1998.4. Limitation and Timeliness of the Original Applications Filed Before the Central Administrative Tribunal:The petitioners argued that the Original Applications (OAs) were barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose in 1982 and 1984. The respondents contended that the cause of action arose from the orders dated 22.9.1998 and 13.10.1998, which were challenged within the permissible time frame. The Court observed that no plea of limitation was raised before the Tribunal, and the OAs were filed within time from the date the cause of action arose. The Court held that the OAs were not time-barred and the Tribunal was empowered to condone any delay under Section 21(3) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.Conclusion:The Court dismissed Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29117 of 2007 and 38755 of 2007, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the ad hoc stenographers could not claim seniority over regularly selected stenographers. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 was allowed, quashing the Tribunal's order dated 8.2.2006 and the CBDT's decision dated 22.9.1998, along with the consequential orders. The Court directed that the petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2006 be shown senior to the respondents and entitled to all consequential benefits. No orders as to costs were issued, and any interim stay orders were vacated.