TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 872
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Both the OA No. 92 of 2003 and OA No. 123 of 2003 were decided by a common order dated 12.1.2004. In its determination the CAT, Ahmedabad held, that seniority of direct recruits would have to be determined with reference to the date of their actual appointment. The implicit effect of the aforesaid determination was, that the date of arising of the direct recruit vacancies, or the date of initiation of the process of recruitment, or the date when the Staff Selection Commission had made recommendations for the filling up direct recruit vacancies, were inconsequential for determination of seniority of direct recruits. 3. The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12.1.2004 was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Gujarat High Court"), in Union of India and Ors. v. N.R. Parma and Ors. (Special Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2004). Direct recruits separately filed Special Civil Application No. 1512 of 2004 (Virender Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). The Gujarat High Court by its order dated 17.8.2004, upheld the order of the CAT, Ahmedabad, dated 12.1.2004. 4. The Union of India assailed the order passed by the Guja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 271 of 2002 (G.R. Chalana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 275 of 2002 (Bhanwar Lal Soni and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 293 of 2002 (Ranjeet Singh Rathore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), were filed by promotee Income Tax Inspectors before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT, Jodhpur"), to assail the seniority-list wherein direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, though appointed later, were placed higher in the seniority-list, i.e., above promotee Income Tax Inspectors, merely because they occupied vacancies of earlier years. The CAT, Jodhpur allowed the claim of the promotee Income Tax Inspectors by a common order dated 8.9.2003. The order passed by the CAT, Jodhpur dated 8.9.2003 was assailed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Rajasthan High Court") by filing four writ petitions (DBC WP No. 785 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. R.K. Bothra and Ors.; DBC WP No. 786 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. Banwari Lal Soni and Ors.; DBC WP No. 787 of 2004, Union of India and Ors. v. Giriraj Prasad Sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the post of Income Tax Inspectors from the Income Tax Department, the SSC issued advertisements in May/June, 1993, inviting applications for appointment by way of direct recruitment, against vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors of the year 1993-94. To fill up these vacancies, the SSC held the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income Tax Examination, 1993. All the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006 Responded to the aforesaid advertisement. The said Petitioners, were in the first instance, subjected to a written test conducted by the SSC in December, 1993. Thereafter, those who qualified the written examination, were invited for an interview/viva-voce. All the Petitioners appeared for the viva-voce test conducted in October 1994. On 21/28.1.1995 the SSC declared the result of the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income-Tax Examination, 1993. The names of the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006, figured in the list of successful candidates. After verification of their character and antecedents, and after they were subjected to a medical fitness examination, the Petitioners in TC (C) No. 91 of 2006 were issued offers of appointment as Income Tax Inspectors in the Department of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dates of their deemed retrospective promotion. However, the applicants will not be entitled to any actual arrears of monetary benefits till the date of actual order of promotion. The actual monetary benefits are prospective, only from the date of order of promotion and consequent date of assuming charge. 2. In the circumstances of the case, the official Respondents are granted three months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to comply with these directions. 3. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. On 10.9.1999 a clarificatory order was passed by the CAT, Principal Bench. A relevant extract, of the aforesaid clarificatory order, is being reproduced hereunder: 2. But, on reconsideration and on second thought, we feel that there is no necessity to allow this M.A. and to recall our order dt.8.9.99 for the simple reason that our order will not prejudice the case of the private Respondents in any way. What we have stated in our order dt.8.9.1999 is that the official Respondents should strictly enforce the seniority list dt.8.2.99 and then on that basis hold review DPC and consider the claim of the applicants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not applied the "quota" and "rota" principle. On 23.2.2000, the CAT, Principal Bench disposed of OA No. 2307 of 1999, and other connected original applications (Krishan Kanahiya and Ors. v. Union of India, OA No. 676 of 1999; H.P.S. Kharab and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 387 of 1999; Muneesh Rajani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., OA No. 964 of 1999) by a common order. In paragraph 7 of its order the CAT, Principal Bench, narrated the issues which came up for its determination as under: 7. The short question which is posed for our consideration is as to what is the precise date on which direct recruits can be considered for seniority vis-`-vis the promotees. Whether it is (i) the date on which the vacancies have arisen; (ii) the date when the same have been notified by the department by sending requisitions to the Staff Selection Commission; (iii) the date on which selection by the Commission is made; (iv) the date when the selection is reported to the department; or (v) the date on which the direct recruit actually assumes office. During the course of hearing of the aforementioned original applications, it was acknowledged by the rival parties, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for the year. The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent years. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment, remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987. The seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 9. P1 2. D1 10. D1 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 14. D3 7. P4 15. P4 8. P5 16. D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7 It is not necessary to make a reference to the subsequent office memorandum of 3.7.1986 as the same is nothing but a repetition of the instructions contained in the office memorandum da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Petition No. 7356 of 2000, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sanjiv Mahajan and Ors.; Civil Writ Petition No. 5549 of 2001, Kamal Khanna and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) before the Delhi High Court. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the Delhi High Court by a common order dated 25.9.2002, whereby, the order dated 23.2.2000 passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, was set aside with the following observations: 23. Having regard to the fact that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is absolutely cryptic and no cogent or valid reason has been assigned in support thereof, and as the contentions raised before the Tribunal as also before us have not been considered at all, we are of the opinion that for determination of the crucial questions where for, it may be necessary, for the parties to adduce further evidence, the matter may be remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh and the parties may bring on record such other or further materials as may be directed by the learned Tribunal. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we would request the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciple prescribed in the office memoranda dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. The aforesaid seniority-list was assailed by promotee Income Tax Inspectors before the CAT, Principal Bench, through OA No. 2068 of 2003 (C.P.S. Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 2107 of 2003 (Mahender Pratap and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), OA No. 124 of 2004 (S.K. Puri-II and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.). The CAT, Principal Bench, by a common order dated 22.9.2004 allowed the claim preferred by the promotee Income Tax Officers, and as such, quashed the seniority list dated 17.7.2003. The direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, who were Respondents in the original applications referred to above, assailed the order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench, dated 22.9.2004, before the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 3446-49 of 2005 (Pritpal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). As already mentioned hereinabove, the aforesaid writ petitions were transferred to this Court and assigned TC (C) No. 91 of 2006. 17. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the rival parties agreed, that the seniority dispute between the promotee and direct recruit Income Tax Inspecto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the OM dated 22.11.1959, was modified by an office memorandum dated 7.2.1986, issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as, "the OM dated 7.2.1986"). The modification introduced through the OM dated 7.2.1986 was to redress a situation wherein, vacancies of one of the sources were kept (or remained) unfilled during the process of selection, and the unfilled vacancies, had to be filled up through "later" examinations or selections. For the determination of seniority, in the contingency wherein the process of recruitment resulted in filling the vacancies earmarked for the two sources of recruitment, the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, expressed in the OM dated 22.11.1959 remained unaltered. But where the vacancies could not be filled up, and unfilled vacancies had to be filled up "later" through a subsequent process of selection, the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, was modified. 20. Since it is the case of the rival parties before us, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 is the principal instruction, on the basis whereof the present controvers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Courts and the Supreme Court and in several cases the relevant judgment had brought out the inappropriateness of direct recruits of later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. 3. This matter, which was also discussed in the National Council has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time and it has been decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unitended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. Thus, if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it is possible to determine seniority on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported to the recruiting authorities on the basis of the quotas prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules. Excess promotees, if any, exceeding the share falling to the promotion quota based on the corresponding figure, notified for direct recruitment would be treated only as ad-hoc promotees. 6. The General Principles of seniority issued on 22nd December, 1959 referred to above, may be deemed to have been modified to that extent. 7. These orders shall take effect from 1st March 1986. Seniority already determined in accordance with the existing principles on the date of issue of these orders will not be reopened. In respect of vacancies for which recruitment action has already been taken, on the date of issue of these orders either by way of direct recruitment or promotion, seniority will continue to be determined in accordance with the principle in force prior to the issue of this O.M. 8. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the Attached/Subordinate Offices under them to whom the General Principles of Seniority contained in O.M. dated 22.12.1959 are applicable within 2 week as these orders will be effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 7.2.1986, by providing in paragraph 3 thereof, that the earlier "...principle of rotation of quotas would still be followed for determining the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees...." except when the direct recruit vacancies were being "... filled up by direct recruits of later years....". Read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of the OM dated 7.2.1986, the words "...direct recruits of later years...." must be understood to mean, direct recruits who became available through "later" examination(s) or selection(s). Essentially the "later" examination(s) or selection(s) should be perceived as those conducted to fill up the carried forward vacancies, i.e., vacancies which could not be filled up, when the examination or selection for the concerned recruitment year was originally/first conducted. This change it was clarified, was made to stop direct recruits of "later" years, from gaining "... unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position....", as High Courts and the Supreme Court had "...brought out the inappropriateness...." thereof. It is therefore apparent, that the OM dated 7.2.1986 partially modified the "rotation of quotas" principle in the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years,...over promotees who are (were) already in position, would be dispensed with....". It is therefore apparent, that the slots assigned to a particular source of recruitment, would be relevant for determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, to the extent the vacancies could successfully be filled up (and the unfilled slots would be lost) only for vacancies which arose after the OM dated 7.2.1986, came to be issued. (g) The illustration provided in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 fully substantiates the analysis of the OM dated 7.2.1986 recorded in the foregoing sub-paragraphs. In fact, the conclusions drawn in the foregoing sub-paragraphs have been drawn, keeping in mind the explanatory illustration narrated in paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986. (h) In paragraph 6 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 it was asserted, that the general principles for determining seniority in the OM dated 22.11.1959 were being "modified" to the extent expressed (in the OM dated 7.2.1986). The extent of modification contemplated by the OM dated 7.2.1986 has already been delineated in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional, direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent year. ILLUSTRATION: Where the Recruitment Rules provide 50% of the vacancies of a grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and a assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the year 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987, the seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under: 1986 1987 1. P1 9. P1 2. D1 10. D1 3. P2 11. P2 4. D2 12. D2 5. P3 13. P3 6. D3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recruits selected, against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year, would be placed en-bloc below the last promotee. and vice versa. It is, therefore, apparent, that the position expressed in the O. Ms. dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, on the subject of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, was absolutely identical. This is indeed how it was intended, because the OM dated 3.7.1986 was only meant to "consolidate" existing governmental instructions, on the subject of seniority. 22. Chronologically, it is necessary, at the present juncture to refer to an Office Note of the Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment (D) Section, dated 20.12.1999 (hereinafter referred to as, "the O.N. dated 20.12.1999"). Undoubtedly, an office note has no legal sanction, and as such, is not enforceable in law. Yet an office note is certainly relevant for determining the logic and process of reasoning which prevailed at the relevant point of time. These would aid in the interpretation of the binding office memoranda, only when the language of the office memoranda is ambiguous. Ofcourse, only where there is no conflict between the two i.e., the office note a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncy should join in 1987 itself. It would suffice if action has been initiated for 1987 DR vacancies in 1987 itself. This is because, in a case of direct recruitment, if the administrative action in filling up the post by DR takes more than a year or so the individual cannot be held responsible for such administrative delay and hence it would not be appropriate to deprive him of his due seniority for delay on the part of administration in completing his selection by direct recruitment. In fact ordinarily the process of direct recruitment takes more than a year to be completed and if DR is to join in the same year for getting seniority of that year then no DR will get seniority of the same year because as already stated the DR process takes more than a year. Hence, as already stated initiation of action for recruitment in sufficient. It is not clear whether our O.M. of 07.02.1986 has been interpreted correctly on the above line by the Deptt. of Revenue. Hence the above position may be suitably incorporated in the para-wise comments prepared by them and it may be modified accordingly. Subject to this, the parawise comments appear to be generally in order. It is however for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation of binding office memoranda, only where the language is ambiguous, and only if there is no conflict between the two (the office note and the office memoranda, sought to be interpreted). In the aforesaid background, and for the aforesaid limited purpose, reference is also being made to the ON dated 2.2.2000. The same is being extracted hereunder: Department of Personnel & Training Estt. (D) Section Notes from p.17/ante may please be seen with reference to our earlier note on Pp.9-10 ante. With reference to 'X' on p.18 and 'Y' on p.19/ante, it will be clear from our note on Pp.9-10/ante that if action for the Recruitment Year 1986-1987 has been initiated at any time during that Recruitment Year even if the exam is held in 1988 and the results are declared in 1989 and the candidate join only in 1990, since the action for recruitment was initiated in 1986-1987 itself merely because the process of recruitment took so long for which the candidates cannot be blamed and since the responsibility for the delay in completing the process of recruitment squarely lies with the administration, it would not be appropriate to deprive the candidates of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes joined in a further later year (than the one in which the result was declared), the selected candidates will be entitled to be assigned seniority, with reference to the recruitment year (in which the requisition of vacancies was made). The logic and reasoning for the aforesaid conclusion (expressed in the ON dated 2.2.2000) is, if the process of direct recruitment is initiated in the recruitment year itself, the selected candidate(s) cannot be blamed for the administrative delay, in completing the process of selection. (b) The words "initiation of action for recruitment", and the words "initiation of recruitment process", were explained to mean, the date of sending the requisition to the recruiting authority. 24. Having examined the matter thus far, it is necessary to refer to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue's, letter dated 11.5.2004 (hereinafter referred to as, "the letter dated 11.5.2004"). The aforesaid letter is being reproduced below: New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004 To, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), CHANDIGARH Subject: Fixation of inter-se seniority of DR and Promotee Income Tax Inspectors in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 27.7.2004 is reproduced hereunder: New Delhi, the 27th July, 2004 To Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) CHANDIGARH Subject: Fixation of inter-se seniority of DR and Promotee Income tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOP&T in r/o OM dated 3.7.86. Sir, I am directed to refer to Board's letter of even number dated 11.5.2004 on the above subject and to request that the application of this clarification may be kept in abeyance till further orders. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to the Government of India A perusal of the letter dated 27.7.2004 reveals, that the allegedly clarificatory letter dated 11.5.2004, had been kept in abeyance. The second letter dated 8.9.2004 (referred to above) is also being reproduced below: New Delhi, the 8th September, 2004 To AI CCITs(CCA) Sub: Fixation of inter se seniority between Direct Recruits (DR) and Promotee (PR) Inspectors of Income tax in various charges of the Income tax Department - regarding. Sir, I am directed to say that a number of OAs/WPs are pending/under adjudication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India, Department of Personnel and Training, dated 3.3.2008 (hereafter referred to as, "the OM dated 3.3.2008"). In view of the emphatic reliance on the OM dated 3.3.2008, during the course of hearing, the same is reproduced hereunder, in its entirety: New Delhi, dated the 3rd March, 2008 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Consolidated instructions on seniority contained in DOP&T O.M. No. 22011/7/1986-Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986 - Clarification regarding The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's consolidated instructions contained in O.M. No. 22011/7/1986-Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986 laying down the principles on determination of seniority of persons appointed to services/posts under the Central Government. 2. Para 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 contains the following provisions: 2.4.1 The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees, which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Recruitment Rules. 2.4.2 If adequate number of direct recruits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l fitness, police verification, etc.). (c) As per the OM dated 3.7.1986, when appointments are made against unfilled vacancies in subsequent year(s), the persons appointed would "not" get seniority with reference to the year in which the vacancy arose, or the year in which the recruitment process was initiated, or the year in which the selection process was conducted. (d) As per the OM dated 3.3.2008, when appointments are made against unfilled vacancies in subsequent year(s), the persons appointed would get seniority of the year in which they are appointed "on substantive basis". 26. Before examining the merits of the controversy on the basis of the OM dated 3.3.2008, it is necessary to examine one related submission advanced on behalf of the direct recruits. It was the contention of learned Counsel, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 being an executive order issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, would apply only prospectively. In this behalf it was pointed out, that the disputed seniority between rival parties before this Court was based on the appointment to the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors, well before the OM dated 3.3.2008 was issued. As such, it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Castes made after May 5, 1975 (after May 14, 1977 in so far as the Service is concerned), have to be made in accordance with the instructions as contained in the letter dated May 5, 1975 as clarified by letter dated April 8, 1980. On that view, the appointment of Shri Bal want Rai in 1979 has to be treated to be an appointment made under the said instructions and operation of these instructions cannot be postponed till April 8, 1980.... In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept that the OM dated 3.3.2008, would only apply prospectively. We are also satisfied, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 which is only a "clarification" of the earlier OM dated 3.7.1986, would relate back to the original instrument, namely, the OM dated 3.7.1986. 27. We shall now endeavour to examine the effect of OM dated 3.3.2008 on the subject of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Would the OM dated 3.3.2008 supersede the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and/or 3.7.1986? And, would the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 negate the OM dated 3.3.2008, to the extent that the same is repugnant to the earlier OMs (dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986)? In our view, what needs to be kept in mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2/80-Estt(D) dt.7.2.86. Therefore, paragraph 2.4.2 must be deemed to have been recorded in the consolidating OM, on the basis of the OM dated 7.2.1986. The instant assertion has been made on account of it having been expressly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the OM dated 3.7.1986 (extracted above), that the number and date of the original communication has been quoted in the margin, so that the user may refer to it, to understand fully the context in which the order in question was issued. Therefore, for all intents and purposes the OM dated 3.3.2008 is with reference to the OM dated 7.2.1986. It is for this reason, that while debating the exact purport of the OM dated 3.3.2008, it has been our endeavour to examine the same, with reference to the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986, which were inter alia "consolidated" in the OM dated 3.3.2008. 29. A perusal of the OM dated 3.3.2008, would reveal, that a reference to paragraphs 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the OM dated 3.7.1986, has been made therein. Thereupon, the meaning of the term "available" used in paragraph 2.4.2 of the OM dated 3.7.1986, is statedly "clarified". In view of the conclusion drawn in the foregoing paragr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Having so concluded, it is natural to record, that as the position presently stands, the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 would have an overriding effect over the OM dated 3.3.2008 (to the extent of conflict between them). and the OM dated 3.3.2008 has to be ignored/omitted to the extent that the same is in derogation of the earlier OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986. In the light of the conclusions recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that the OM dated 3.3.2008 is not relevant for the determination of the present controversy. 30. Besides the interpretation of the relevant OMs issued by the DOPT, learned Counsel representing the promotees placed reliance on some judgments of this Court in order to press their contention, that seniority for direct recruits could not be determined with reference to a date prec....