# MG Bansal v. UOI on the ground that quota rule was - **Citation:** [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1183 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-02-19 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2008 - **Bench:** H.K. Sema, Altamas Kabir, Lokeshwar Singh Panta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mg-bansal-v-uoi-on-the-ground-that-quota-rule-was-24215 - **Pages:** 35 ## Headnote Service Law: Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968 c -"' - Rule 16, Schedule Ill - Promotion of Assistants to the grade. of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers - Direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota - Inter se seniority between - Determination . of - Held: Is on basis of length of continuous officiation in the · D grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to substantive vacancies within their quota - On late induction of direct recruits, quota reserved for them does not lapse nor quota rule breaks down - Continuous officiation in service without break gives them benefit of seniority - But, when E recruitment is from two sources and quota is prescribed, person from one source cannot take benefit available to other source within quota - Promotees who have been promoted within their quota of 75% under the Rules would get benefit of continuous officiation from the date of their substantive appointment to .F "' the substantive post - Those appointed temporarily from the cadre of Assistants to that of Assistant Civilian Officers temporarily would not get benefit - They would be reverted when nominees join from UPSC. In year 1968, the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil G Services Rules, 1968 were framed and service were --. ~ classified in various grades like Assistant Civilian Staff Officers (ACSOs) and Assistants etc. The relative seniority of Direct Recruits and promotees was to be regulated in 1183 H 1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A accordance with the provision made in the Third Schedule of the Rules. The respondents-Union of India published seniority list of 1977 based on the principle of ante-dated seniority of ACSOs Direct Recruits (OR). Some of the ACSOs 8 Departmental Promotees (OP) filed writ petition titled as MG Bansal v. UOI on the ground that quota rule was applied discriminately without having regard to the appointed service and the DR who joined later were made senior to promotees ACSO who were regularly promoted C earlier to OR. The tribunal by order dated 20.11.1992 held that the determination of seniority of promotees and direct recruits on basis of quota and rota is valid; that there was no breakdown of quota prescribed in the rules; and that the seniority between direct recruits and promotees D regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota was to be determined on basis of length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs. The respondents-Union of India started splitting up vacancies from year 1992 and prepared two separate E · select list for each year retrospectively for the grade of ACSOs. Prior to implementation of the order in MG Bansal's case, in 1995 draft seniority list was issued based on the principle of carrying forward of slots and ACSO (ORs) were given about 10 to 15 years seniority even F when they were not holding any office in service. AR and others-ACSOs (DPs) filed application titled as Smt. Ammini Rajan and Ors. v. UOI challenging the Select List of Assistants for promotion to the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers from 1977 to 1982 and also the Seniority List G of ACSOs for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 for promotion to further grade of Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs) since it was contrary to the directions of the Tribunal in MG Bansa/'s case and in violation of AFHO Civil Services Rules, 1960. The tribunal disposed of the matter by order H dated 01.04.2002. It directed that the seniority between L ~·· AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1185 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/ A ~ promoted within their respective quota was to be determined by counting the length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to substantive. vacancies. AFHQ (DRs) Civil Service Officers' Association and Union of India filed B separate writ petition challenging the order of the tribunal ·~ in Smt. Ammini Ra ## Text _Characters 0–39,904 of 72,645. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._ ~· [2008) 2 S.C.R. 1183 AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. A - ';.. II. I UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2008) ' FEBRUARY 19, 2008 - B (H.K. SEMA, ALTAMAS KABIR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Service Law: Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968 c -"' - Rule 16, Schedule Ill - Promotion of Assistants to the grade. of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers - Direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota - Inter se seniority between - Determination . of - Held: Is on basis of length of continuous officiation in the · D grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to substantive vacancies within their quota - On late induction of direct recruits, quota reserved for them does not lapse nor quota rule breaks down - Continuous officiation in service without break gives them benefit of seniority - But, when E recruitment is from two sources and quota is prescribed, person from one source cannot take benefit available to other source within quota - Promotees who have been promoted within their quota of 75% under the Rules would get benefit of continuous officiation from the date of their substantive appointment to .F "' the substantive post - Those appointed temporarily from the cadre of Assistants to that of Assistant Civilian Officers temporarily would not get benefit - They would be reverted when nominees join from UPSC. In year 1968, the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil G Services Rules, 1968 were framed and service were --. ~ classified in various grades like Assistant Civilian Staff Officers (ACSOs) and Assistants etc. The relative seniority of Direct Recruits and promotees was to be regulated in 1183 H 1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A accordance with the provision made in the Third Schedule of the Rules. The respondents-Union of India published seniority list of 1977 based on the principle of ante-dated seniority of ACSOs Direct Recruits (OR). Some of the ACSOs 8 Departmental Promotees (OP) filed writ petition titled as MG Bansal v. UOI on the ground that quota rule was applied discriminately without having regard to the appointed service and the DR who joined later were made senior to promotees ACSO who were regularly promoted C earlier to OR. The tribunal by order dated 20.11.1992 held that the determination of seniority of promotees and direct recruits on basis of quota and rota is valid; that there was no breakdown of quota prescribed in the rules; and that the seniority between direct recruits and promotees D regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota was to be determined on basis of length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs. The respondents-Union of India started splitting up vacancies from year 1992 and prepared two separate E · select list for each year retrospectively for the grade of ACSOs. Prior to implementation of the order in MG Bansal's case, in 1995 draft seniority list was issued based on the principle of carrying forward of slots and ACSO (ORs) were given about 10 to 15 years seniority even F when they were not holding any office in service. AR and others-ACSOs (DPs) filed application titled as Smt. Ammini Rajan and Ors. v. UOI challenging the Select List of Assistants for promotion to the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers from 1977 to 1982 and also the Seniority List G of ACSOs for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 for promotion to further grade of Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs) since it was contrary to the directions of the Tribunal in MG Bansa/'s case and in violation of AFHO Civil Services Rules, 1960. The tribunal disposed of the matter by order H dated 01.04.2002. It directed that the seniority between L ~·· AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1185 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/ A ~ promoted within their respective quota was to be determined by counting the length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to substantive. vacancies. AFHQ (DRs) Civil Service Officers' Association and Union of India filed B separate writ petition challenging the order of the tribunal ·~ in Smt. Ammini Rajan's case which were allowed by order dated 14.11.06. The order of the Tribunal was set aside directing that the seniority would be determined in accordance with the judgment of the tribunal in MG Bansal c / and Ors. v. UOl's case. Departmental Promotees ACSOsAR and others also filed writ petitions which were , dismissed and that of AFHQ Civil Service Officers was disposed of by order dated 15.01.2007. Hence the present appeals. D The questions which arose for consideration in these appeals were: (i) Whether seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their E respective quota was to be determined by the length of the continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to the substantive vacancies under Schedule Ill of the Rules within their quota. (ii) Whether the incumbents belonging to one source F ; in excess of their own quota and utilizing the quota of the incumbents belonging to another source would only officiate in the promoted post and that the direct recruits when inducted in service through selection by UPSC, the promotees in the quota of direct recruits on basis of Note G (2) of the Rules of Schedule Ill would either be reverted or ...... ~ would be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota of subsequent year and the period of officiation outside their quota of either of the incumbents from other source would not count for their seniority. H t1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A Partly allowing the appeals, the Court -I(' ' HELD: 1. The relative seniority between the direct I recruits and regularly appointed/ promoted candidates within their respective quota, shall be determined by the B length of the continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to the substantive vacancies in terms of Schedule Third within their quota as held by the tribunal in M.G Bansa/'s case, which has attained finality after dismissal of the SLPs filed against the said order of the Tribunal. (Para 28) [1215-C-D] c 2.1 From the provisions of Third Schedule of the ' Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1968, it - is clear that substantive vacancies to the extent of 75% shall be made in the order of seniority of temporary D officers of the Grade, who have completed the period of probation successfully and 25% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of qualifying Combined Competitive Examination held by the Commission for recruitment to the Central Services, Group 'A' /Group '8'. The relative seniority of the above E categories of officers shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between departmental promotees appointed to the substantive posts and direct recruits which shall be bas~d on the quota of vacancies reserved for each source. Note (2) under the Third F Schedule of the Rules provides that "substantive vac,ancies" meant for direct recruits may be filled temporarily by promotion from amongst Assistants on the basis of selection, but such promotions shall be terminated when the nominees of the Commission become available G to fill the substantive vacancies in 25% quota. (Para 21) [1206-C-E] 2.2 Note (2) to the Third Schedule mandates that ~ -· ' substantive vacancies at (b) may be filled temporarily by promotion from amongst Assistants on the basis of H selection. Such promotion shall be terminated when the -i AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1187 OF INDIA & ORS. nominees of the Commission would become available to A )I.. fill the substantive vacancy. In the AFHQ Civil Service, promotions were made against direct recruit vacancies after the vacancies had been notified to the Public Commission. The promotions were temporary and the promotees were given seniority in accordance with Rule B 16.S(ii) and after completing their probation, they were confirmed only when substantive vacancies were found available in their quota. Therefore, the inter se seniority was, only between substantive vacancy promotees and substantive direct recruits. All promotee substantive c ACSOs were assigned seniority under Rule 16(1), whereas all direct recruits were assigned seniority under Rule 16.6. Thereafter, these two seniority lists of substantive officers from the two sources of recruitment are integrated under Rule 16.7, in accordance with the D well-known principle of quota rota rule. Thus, it is evident that the late induction of the direct recruits does not interfere with the seniority of the promotees under Rule 16.5. (Para 23) [1208-D-H] 2.3 Note (2) to the Third Schedule is to be read with E Rule 11.1 of the Rules and the Regulations made ~ thereunder so that substantive vacancies shall be intimated to UPSC well within time. Note (2) is an enabling provision insofar as it permits the Government to fill the vacancies temporarily through selection. There is a F ... mandate in Note (2) that these promotions will be terminated when the direct recruits would join the post. Thus, by the time the direct recruit had come or is likely to come, such a promotee who happens to occupy a berth of the direct recruit by virtue of Note (2) t9 Schedule Third G will normally, because of his seniority, get a berth in his ...- ,.. own quota. The order of the Tribunal shows that the applicants and the interveners, however, could not furnish any data to show that the promotees, who are occupying .. · the berth of direct recruits under Note (2) temporarily, were H .. I •. ~ 1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A subsequently got adjusted in the prescribed quota of departmental promotees against the· substantive .l( vacancies. No time-limit is prescribed in Note (2) during which such temporarily promoted Assistants to the grade of ACSOs in the quota of direct recruits can enjoy that B benefit. Note (2) only provides that whenever direct recruits become available, the appointment of such promotees shall stand terminated. No other interpretation of Note (2) can be possible. (Para. 24) [1209-A-E] 't' c 2.4 Note (2) to the Third Schedule safeguards the interest of the direct recruits, who though are successful in the Civil Service Examination conducted by the UPSC ) and yet are waiting for their appointment as the appointment of the direct recruits is bound to take some time. Merely because there is late arrival of direct recruits, D the quota reserved for them cannot be taken as lapsed nor can it be taken to have led to break down of the quota rule. The relevant rules clearly envisage that the -of continuous officiation in a service without break also gives the benefit of seniority, but in a case where the E recruitment is from two sources and the quota is prescribed, then the person from one source cannot take. the benefit available to the other source within the quota. Thus, promotees who have been promoted within their ,_ quota of 75% under the rules as prescribed under Third ~~ F Schedule read with Rule 16(7) of the Rules would get the benefit of continuous officiation from the date of their ')- substantive appointment to the grade of availability of a substantive post and after having worked on temp_orary basis in the grade. Those who have been appointed G temporarily under Note (2) from the cadre of Assistants to the grade of Assistant Civilian Officers temporarily, would not get the benefit of their continuous officiation and shall ~ -"": be liable by operation of law to be reverted or there shall be deemed reversion when the nominees from the UPSC H would join on the recommendations of the UPriC. Such ' t / ~ AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1189 OF INDIA & ORS. temporary officers may not actually face reversion A because by the time the vacancies of the next year may become available in their quota of 75% and they can very well, by virtue of their seniority, earn the benefit of substantive appointment under the Third Schedule. (Part 24) [1209-E-H; 1210-A-C] B 2.6 The High Court by its impugned order dated 14.11.2006, held that the order of the Tribunal in Smt.Ammini Rajan's case is contrary to its earlier decision passed in M.G Bansa/'s case. The High Court directed the issue of seniority to be determined as it was done prior c to Smt. Ammini Rajan's case was decided by the Tribunal. The High Court further held that the direction of the tribunal where it is held that the seniority of DRs should be determined from the date of joining and further that the unfilled vacancies and not the slots can be carried D forward, is contradictory to the decision of the tribunal in .,.. M.G. Bansal's case. The reasoning of the High Court cannot be accepted. The judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal in Smt. Ammini Rajan's case would plainly amount to interference with E the decision in M.G Bansal's case and further if the order of the High Court is given effect to, the result thereof would be that the DRs. would be permitted to take advantage of more than 12 years of ante-dated seniority without holding an office. The petition filed by Smt. Ammini Rajan was F " primarily seeking implementation of the earlier decision in Shri M.G Bansa/'s case. On bare examination of the decision in Smt. Ammini Rajan' case, no discrepancy, no contradiction or overlapping or inconsistency whatsoever in the said order is found as compared to the earlier G decision in_M.G Bansal's case. Therefore, the order of the ... ,.. High Court is erroneous as it erred in understanding and appreciating the gist of the order recorded in Smt. Amminl Rajan's case. (Para 25) [1210-E-H; 1211-A-D] 2.7. In 'light of the factual situation, service rules H 1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A governing the conditions of service of employees and the ~ settled proposition of law, the judgment and order dated 14.11.2006 and 15.01.2007 of the High Court are not sustainable and are set aside to the extent of setting aside the order of the tribunal in Smt. Ammini Rajan's case B holding that the said order is contrary to the earlier judgment in M.G Bansal's case. This view of the High Court apparently appears to be contrary and contradictory to ..,,. the judgment and order of the tribunal in M.G. Bansa/'s case. ·The Writ Petition of the AFHQ Civil Service (Direct c Recruits-Gazetted) Officers' Association and Union of India against the order of the tribunal in Smt. Ammini Rajan's case are dismissed. The writ petition filed by the DPs is allowed accordingly. Writ petition of AFHQ Civil Service Officer stand disposed of in terms of this judgment. The D respondent-authority is directed to determine the issue relating to inter se seniority between the DPs and DRs in strict compliance of M.G Bansal's case within 3 months. (Para 32) (1216-G-H; 1217-A-G] -t O.P Sing/a & Anr. etc. v. Union of India & Ors.(1984) 4 E SCC 450 - distinguished. Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 561; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2007) 1 SCC 683; M. Subba Reddy & Anr., etc. v. A. P State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 729; F Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 673; Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1987 Suppl. 207;Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. O.A. No.1356/1997 decided on 1.04.2002; Shri M. G. Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. TA No.356/1985(CW 3/ G 78) decided on 20.11.1992 - referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2008. From the Judgment and order dated 14/11/2006 and 15/ H 01/2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CWP Nos. AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1191 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] ,. 4058 & 5396/2002 and CWP No. 18073/2005 respectively. A WITH Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 2008. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Rakesh Khanna, Kiran Suri, S.J. B Amith, V.K. Sidharthan and Shailja Sinha for the Appellants. ...,, Sidharth Dava, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Murli Manohar Singh and Sharad Pandey for the Respondents. Ammini Rajan, Baldev Singh, R.K.D. Mangal and G.K. c ..... Pandey, Respondents-In-Person . P. Vishwanath Shetty, Ashok Bhan, Aruna Gupta and D.S. Mehra for UOI. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted. D 1'· 2. The usual question as regards determination of inter se seniority between Direct Recruits (DRs) and Departmental Promotees (DPs) once again falls for consideration in these two appeals by special leave, therefore, for the sake of E convenience, they are being heard and decided by this common judgment. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 14th November, 2006 in F , -of C.W.P. No. 4058/2002; C.W.P. No. 4458/2002; C.W.P. No. 5396/ 2002 and C.W.P. No. 62/2003 and order dated 15th January, 2007 in C.W.P. No. 18073/2005, whereby and whereunder the order dated 1st April, 2002 in O.A. No. 1356/1997 (Smt.Ammini Rajan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, is set G _,, aside. ,,,,... 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") allowed the said O.A. filed by Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. challenging the Select List of Assistants for H 1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A promotion to the grade of Assistant Civilian Staff Officers ·< (hereinafter referred to as "ACSOs") of Armed Forces Headquarters(AFHQ) Civil Services for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979 which was circulated vide letter dated 2nd July, 1996; the Select List for the year 1980 which was circulated vide B another letter dated 20 .09 .1996; the Select List for the year 1981 circulated vide letter dated 20.11.1996 and also the Select List of 1982 circulated vide letter dated 14.03.1997. The applicants .,.. were also aggrieved by the consequential Seniority List of ACSOs of AFHQ Civil Services prepared by the Departmental c Promotion Committee (for short "the DPC") for the years 198889 and 1989-90 respectively for promotion to further grade of Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs). B_ased on the revised Select List in the grade of ACSOs, the claim of the applicants was that the Select List and the Seniority List for promotion to the grade of D CSOs were drawn in contravention of the directions given by the Tribunal in TA No.356/1985 (CW 3/78) rendered in Shri M. G Bansal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. on 20th November, 1992 ·-t and also in violation of AFHQ Civil Services Rules, 1968. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on E record, disposed of O.A. No. 1356 of 1997 (Smt. Ammini Rajan's case) with the following directions:- (i) Impugned ordersAnnexure-A-1 andA-2 are quashed. The respondents are directed to determine the F seniority between the direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota by counting the length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to the substantive vacancies within their quota in accordance with the Rule 16(7) of the AFHQ G Rules and Schedule Ill of the Rules. In the case of promoteesACSO, the length of continuous officiation ~ . in the grade will be determined from the date when they are promoted in substantive vacancies in their lawful quota. In case of direct recruits ACSO, their H seniority shall be determined from the year in which AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1193 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] they joined the service. While determining seniority, A respondents are directed to adhere to the DPC year in case of promotee officer and to retain as 1st October to 30th of September of the following year as provided in the rules/regulations. (ii) Respondents are further directed to prepare single B Select List in a year for the ACSO grade and they cannot report to two separate lists for the purpose of merely identifying the Note (2) Schedule Ill vacancies as the rules do not envisage the same. c (iii) Respondents are further directed that the vacancies of DR quota may be carried forward but while determining the seniority the slots of the vacancies left unfilled by the DR quota shall not be carried forward for the purpose of determining seniority. D '+· (iv) It is further directed that after finalizing the seniority list, the department shall prepare eligibility lists for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grade. (v) These directions may be implemented within a period E of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, theAFHQ (DRs) Civil Service Officers' Association filed Writ Petition No. 4058 of2002, the Union of India filed separate Writ Petition No. 5396/ F 2002 and some of the Departmental PromoteesACSOs, namely, Shri K.S. Dhingra and Smt. Ammini Rajan, filed W.P. Nos. 4458/ 2002 and 62/2003 respectively, whereas AFHQ Civil Services _,) Officers filed C.W.P. No. 18073/2005 in the High Court of Delhi. -1 The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition G .... ).. Nos. 4058/2002 and 5396/2002 by an order dated 14.11.2006 and set aside the order dated 01.04.2002 recorded by the Tribunal in OA No. 1356/1997 with further direction to the respondent-Union of India to determine the issue of seniority in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal in TA No. 356/ H \.- ~ , 1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A 1985 dated 201h November, 1992. C.W.P. No. 62/2003 and ~ C.W.P. No. 4458/2002 filed by the DPs were dismissed and CWP No.18073/2005 was disposed of on 15.01.2007 on the basis of direction in the above-said writ petitions. These appeals, therefore, arise from the said judgments and orders of the High B Court. 7. The case of the parties is that prior to the year 1968, the ;---- "( AFHQ Civil Services were governed by the executive instructions as there were no statutory rules governing the service. On 1st March 1968, the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service c Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") were framed, wherein the services are classified in the following Grades:- (a) Senior Administrative Grade (b) Director D (c) Selection Grade (Senior Civil Staff Officer/Joint Director) -+ (d) Civil Staff Officer/Deputy Director E (e) Assistant Civilian Staff Officer/Section Officer {initially t designated as Superintendent) I= (f) Assistant ~ Rule 16 of the said Rules deals with the seniority, which • F provides that the relative seniority of the direct recruit and promotees shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions ~ made in this behalf in the Third Schedule. As per the Third Schedule of the Rules, all temporary vacancies in the grade of ACSO shall be filled by temporary promotion from amongst the l= Assistants by the method of selection. The Third Schedule further f= G provides that substantive appointment to 75% of the substantive vacancies shall be made in order of seniority of the temporary -'( "'· officers of the grade, who have completed the period of - probation subject to the rejection of unfit. 25% of the substantive ' >- vacancies shall be filled up by the direct recruit through Civil H Service Examination conducted by UPSC. As per Note (2) of AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1195 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] Third Schedule, unfilled vacancies of DR quota may be filled A temporarily by promotion from amongst Assistants by selection method. 8. Aggrieved by the Seniority List of 1977 published by the Department, which was based on the principle of ante-dated B seniority in respect of ACSOs (DR), some of the ACSOs (DP) filed Writ Petition No. 3/1978 titled as M. G Bansal & Ors. v. .,. Union of India & Ors. in the High Court of Delhi inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- (a) Respondents have misapplied, misconstrued and c misinterpreted Rule 16(7) as well as Third Schedule .... particularly Note (2), which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (b) The Quota Rule has been applied discriminately without having regard to the approved service. D -.,. (c) When the direct recruits were inducted in the service, they were placed above departmental promotees who had been promoted much earlier. The said placing in the seniority list was done irrespective of the date of E appointment of the direct recruits and they could not be positioned higher than the Departmental Promotees. 9. After the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the year 1985, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was numbered as T.A. No. 356/1985. The Tribunal F ~ by its order dated 2nd June, 1989 disposed of the said petition hplding that the quota prescribed in the Rules has not broken down and the seniority between the direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota should be determined by the length of the continuous G officiation in the grade of ACSOs from their respective " ~ appointment to the substantive vacancies under Third Schedule. _J 1 o. It appears from the record that on 8th November 1989, the Union of India and some DR Officers filed two Special Leave Petitions before this Court against the order of the Tribunal dated H i ,- 1196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. I A 2nd June 1989. This Court by its order dated 20th July 1991 held · that the CAT had decided the controversy without adverting to the Rules applicable to the service, particularly Note (2) in the Third Schedul~ and the matter must, therefore, be decided afresh. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the CAT again B decided M. G Bansa/'s case (supra) by an order dated 20th November 1992 in the following manner:- "(a) It is held that Rule 16(7) and Schedule Third so.far as 'f it relates to appointment of the promotees and Direct Recruits in their respective quota and determination c of seniority on the basis of quota and rota is held valid and these are not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I : ... (b) Seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees ~ ~ D regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota should be determined by the length of the continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their respective appointment to the substantive ,. vacancies under Schedule II within their quota, i.e., E in the case of promotee ACSOs the length of continuous officiation in the grade will be reckoned from the date when they are promoted in substantive vacancies. (c) To elucidate further, in the case of temporarily F appointed promotee ACSOs under Note (2) of Schedule Ill of the rules in the direct recruit quota ~ w.e. f. 1969 onwards till 1977 and also thereafter their seniority will be reckoned from the date when they get a berth in the substantive vacancies of their 75% G quota as envisaged under Schedule Ill of the Rules. (d) . The incumbents belonging to one source in excess ~ ~ of their own quota and utilizing the quota of the 1 incumbents belonging to another source will only officiate in the promoted post. It is made clear that f H the direct recruits when inducted as nominees of the ~ AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1197 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] UPSC, the promotees in the quota of the direct A recruits on the basis of Note (2) of the Rules of Schedule 111 will either be reverted or will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota of subsequent year. The period of officiation outside their quota of either of their incumbents from other source will not B count for their seniority. If an officer has been promoted within his quota, then it would be date of confirmation which would be relevant for the officer's seniority. (e) When the promotions are made from either of the sources, C by direct recruitment or by departmental pron:iotion there shall be due compliance of the various instructions and office memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training on the reservation of vacancies for SC/ST and categories D in the proportion directed in the said instruction. The reservation, however, shall remain only at the time of appointment and not in the seniority inter se of the Direct Recruits and promotees which shall be fixed as laid down in Rule 16(7) read with Schedule Ill and · E as directed in the preceding sub-paras above. (f) It is further directed that each quota, as referred to in Schedule 3 of the Rules has to be worked out· independently on its own force. Direct recruit quota' of ACSO which is confined to substantive vacancies F in the grade can be filled by temporarily, appointed Assistants by promotion in the grade of ACSO, but without giving them any right of seniority on the basis of continuous officiation on the vacancies earmarked for Direct Recruits and indent for which has been G sent to the UPSC for nomination from the civil services examination of a particular year. The hopes and aspirations of the promotees aforesaid cannot be related to availability of Direct Recruits filling their quota in that particular year and only it can be when H J 1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A there is total collapse and break down of the quota for a number of years. (g) None of the parties including the official respondents have given relevant data as to when the actual B promotion of Assistants were made to the temporary cadre of ACSO in the direct recruit quota under Note (2) of Schedule 3 the official respondents on the other hand have taken the stand in the chart quote in the .., body of the judgment that of such vacancies in the direct recruit quota were left unfilled and have been c filled temporarily by the Assistant by making departmental promotions and since the exact number is not coming for the and also the position whether such departmental promotees were absorbed in the subsequent vacancies within their quota of 7.5% D direct is issued to revise the impugned seniority list in the light of the observations made in the above sub-paras which shall be made final after hearing the objections on the same and the petitioners, who have since retired, shall be entitled to any E consequential benefits occasioned on account of the revision of the seniority list. The impugned seniority list of 1977 shall stand quashed to that extent. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs." 11. The Union of India, in the garb of implementing the F above-said order of the Tribunal in the case of M. G. Bansal, started splitting up vacancies from the year 1992 and prepared )r two separate Select Lists for each year retrospectively for the · grade of ACSOs. One list was prepared in respect of ACSO(DPs) who allegedly were temporarily appointed against G the unfilled vacancies meant for ACSO(DRs) as per Note (2) in the Third Schedule on the basis of calendar year as against ~ / originally drawn period from 1st October to 30th September each -- year as provided in the Ru~es. It appears that prior to the implementation of the order in M. G. Bansal's case, draft H Seniority List issued in 1995 was., based on the principle of L _,., AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1199 OF INDIA & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] ~ carrying forward of slots and ACSO(DRs) were being given A e about 1 Oto 15 years ante-dated seniority even when they have not been holding any office in the service. Some of the ACSO (DPs), namely, Smt. Ammini Rajan and others filed O.A. No. 1356/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ' challenging the redrawn Select List for the years 1988-89 and ' B 1989-90 in purported compliance with the directions of M. G. Bansa/'s case. The Tribunal by its order dated· 1st April, 2002, as noticed above, disposed of the said O.A. with the abovesaid directions. 12. The AFHQ Civil Services (DR Gazetted) Officers' c Association and others filed O.A. No. 2484/2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 1st September, 2005 dismissed the said application holding that there is no illegality in the preparation of Seniority List. Some of the ACSOs(DRs) filed C.W.P. No. 18073/2005 before the High Court of Delhi D challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 1st September, 2005 which was also allowed by the High Court along with the abovementioned writ petitions. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, E Shri R. Tanwar, President, AFHQ Civilian Officers' Association and other parties in-person. 14. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned senior Advocate appear1ng on behalf of the appellant- AFHQ/ISOs sos (DP) Association contended that the Division Bench of the High Court F has lost sight of the fact that Rules 16(6) and 16(7) do not provide carrying forward of slots, which were examined in detail by the Central Administrative Tribunal in M. G. Bansa/'s case. On the basis of the interpretation of the said Rules, the CAT had fixed the seniority of DR and DP ACSOs based on the length of G continuous officiation and the High Court could not have ~ ~- reversed the judgment of M.G. Bansal's case which had attained finality after the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He next contended that in the Smt. Ammini Rajan's case, the main claim was only for the implementation of the .order H 1200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A recorded by the CAT in M. G Bansa/'s case and other reliefs . were ancillary in substance. According to the learned counsel, one of the main issues agitated in the case of M. GBansal was that DR ACSOs, who joined later in p_oint of time, were made seniors to the promotees ACSOs, who were regularly promoted B earlier to the DR ACSOs. The situation had occurred due to the assignment of antedated seniority, i.e., giving seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy to DR ACSOs and as the Central Government has wrongly implemented the observations contained in para 25(b) of M.G. Bansal's case, which resulted c in filing of the petition by Smt. Ammini Rajan and other DR ACSOs, which came to be decided by the CAT in favour of Smt. Ammini Rajan and others, relying upon the judgment of the CAT in M.G Bansa/'s case. He also contended that if the vacant slots of DR vacancies are carried forward, as directed in the D impugned judgments of the High Court, the direct recruits will get an undue advantage of more than 12 years of ante-dated seniority without holding the office. He next submitted that the fundamental principle of determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees regularly appointed/promoted E within their respective quota should be determined by the length of continuous officiation in the grade of ACSOs from their respective appointment to the substantive vacancies under Third Schedule of the Rules within their quota and the impugned judgment of the High Court observing in paras 13 and 16 to carry forward vacant slots of direct recruits is conflicting with F the final judgment of the CAT rendered in M.G Bansa/'s case which has directed the fixation of seniority based on length of continuous officiation of direct recruits and promotees. 15. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior Advocate, resisting the G aforesaid submissions, argued that the judgment of the High Court cannot be found faulty on any ground and the seniority I ~ inter se between the direct recruits and departmental promotees --" (i) Whether seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees regularly appointed/promoted within their respective quota should be determined by the length of the continuous officiation in the grade of ACSO from their H A B c D 1202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. respective appointment to the substantive vacancies under Schedule II of the Rules within their quota, i.e., in the case of promotee ACSOs the length of continuous officiation in the grade will be reckoned from the date when they are promoted in substantive vacancies in their quota. (ii) Whether the incumbents belonging to one source in excess of their own quota and utilizing the quota of the incumbents befonging to another source will only officiate in the promoted post. The direct recruits when inducted in service through selection by the UPSC, the promotees in the quota of the direct recruits on the basis of Note (2) of the Rules of Schedule Ill will either be reverted or will be absorbed in the vacancies within their quota of subsequent year and the period of officiation outside their quota of either of the incumbents from other source will not count for their seniority. 19. For the purpose of determination of the above-said points, we may notice the relevant Rules. Rule 13 deals with probation, which states that (1) Every E · direct recruit shall initially be appointed on probation for two years from the date of appointment and (2) Every person other than a direct recruit shall, when appointed to the grade of CSO, ACSO and Assistant, be on probation for a period of two years from the date of such appointment. Rule 14 deals with F confirmation of probationers. The quota between the direct recruits and the promotees is governed by Rule 16, which reads as under:- G H "16. Seniority:- (1) All permanent offices included in the initial constitution of a Grade under Rule 9 shall rank senior to all persons substantively appointed to that Grade with effect from any date after the appointed day, and all temporary officers included in the initial constitution of a grade under that rule shall rank senior to all temporary officers appointed to that Grade with effect from any date after the appointed day. r ·) AFHQ/ISOS SOS (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION 1203 OF INDIA & ORS.