Holding

Workers who have already been absorbed under a prior scheme cannot be reconsidered for absorption under a later scheme, and the appellants' absorption in Group C posts is lawful.

Summary

The appellants, casual workers regularised as Technician Grade II (Group C) in 1991, were challenged by earlier absorbers (respondents 3‑12) who had been regularised in Group D posts in 1985. The respondents sought to quash the appellants' regularisation and to be promoted to the Group C posts, arguing seniority. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that the respondents be considered for promotion, a decision upheld by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether workers already absorbed under an earlier scheme could be reconsidered for absorption under a later scheme and whether the appellants' absorption violated seniority principles. It held that the earlier absorptions were final and that the appellants' absorption in Group C posts was valid, as it was not a promotion but a separate absorption under a different scheme. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court orders and dismissed the respondents' applications.

Issues considered

Can workers already absorbed under an earlier casual‑workers absorption scheme be considered again for absorption under a later scheme?
Does the absorption of junior workers in Group C posts violate the principle of seniority in favor of earlier absorbers?
Is the Tribunal's direction to promote the earlier absorbers to Group C posts legally valid?

Subjects

service lawcasual workersabsorption schemesenioritypromotionregularisationCentral Administrative TribunalDelhi High CourtSupreme CourtGroup DGroup C

Judgment

ANIS PARVEZ AND ORS. A
v.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS.

MAY 7, 2002
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, MRS. RUMA PAL AND
BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.]

Service law:
c
Absorption ofcasual workers to Group D post under absorption scheme--
Subsequent absorption of another set of casual workers in Group C post
under separate scheme-Claimed by Group D post workers for quashing of
absorption in Group C post and for promoting them to the post-Held, Group
D post workers since already absorbed, cannot be considered again for D
absorption under later scheme-They could not be considered for promotion
since the workers in the later scheme were not considered by way ofpromotion.

Appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were serving respondent Nos. 1
and 2 as casual workers. In 1985, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were absorbed in
Grade D post according to their seniority pursuant to a scheme framed by E
respondent No. 1 for regularisation of casual workers. In 1991 appellants were
absorbed and regularised against Group 11/C post under different scheme for
regularisation of casual workers pursuant to a decision of this Court.

Respondent Nos. 3 to 12, filed applications before Central Administrative
Tribunal seeking quashing of regularisation of the appellants and sought for F
direction to respondent Nos. I and 2 to fill up the regular Group C post by
promoting them to the post. Appellants were not made parties therein. The
application were allowed by the Tribunal directing respondent Nos. I and 2 for
considering them for Group C post by quashing the appointment of the
appellants. G
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against order of the Tribunal
Appeal against the same in this Court by respondent No. I was dismissed in
• litnine.

843 H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A In appeal by the appellant against the order of the High Court, appellants
and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the case of respondent Nos. 3 to
12 for absorption in promotional grade could not be considered as they were
already absorbed as per availability of vacancies at the relevant time.

Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 contended that the absorption of appellants, who
B were junior to them, was contrary to rules of seniority.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. Since respondent Nos. 3 to 12 had already been absorbed six
C years earlier against Group D posts according to their seniority and, therefore,
the question of considering them again for absorption under the later scheme
did not arise. (847-CI

2. Absorption of the appellants in Group II/Grade C cannot be faulted
with. It is only by way of concession that a scheme of absorption was framed
D pursuant to a direction issued by this court and when there were vacancies of
higher scale at the relevant time and respondent Nos. 3to12 were not serving
in those posts consideration of their cases for absorption in that Grade could
not be considered. Further when the absorption of the appellants came up for
consideration the posts were available in Group II/Grade C and, therefore, their
cases could not again be considered. Though the Tribunal has thought fit to
E give a direction to consider the cases of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 for promotion
to the Higher scale,,the cases of the appellants were considered not by way of
promotion but by way absorption in those posts. (847-D, E, Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2935 of2000.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.99 of the Delhi High Court in
W.P. (C) No. 5758of1999.

WITH

G I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 in S.L.P. (C) No. I 8382/1999.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Raju Ramachandran, Ms.
Suman Bala Rastogi, Ms. Madho Sikri, V.K. Rao, Mrs. Santosh Singh, B.B.
Raval and Ms. Janani for the appearing parties. ..
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANIS PARVfZ v_ DIR. GEN COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH {RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 845

RAJENDRA BABU, J. A
C.A No. 2935 of 2000

... The appellants in this appeal are employees of respondent No. 2 who
were regularised on Technician Grade II as highly skilled or skilled workers
on 9.12.1991 under a scheme formulated by respondent No. 1 pursuant to a B
decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 6331/88 Mrs. Kamlesh Kapoor v. Union
of India. In that writ petition, a direction was issued to respondent No. 1 to
prepare a scheme for the absorption of all persons who were working on
casual basis for more than one year and to absorb such of those persons who
satisfy the scheme as regular employees in the respective posts held by them.
Certain other incidental reliefs were also given by that order. Subsequently, C
a scheme was prepared pursuant to the order of this Court known as "Casual
Workers Absorption Scheme 1990" and in terms of the said scheme, the
appellants were considered for absorption for regularisation against Group II/
C posts on which they were already working and after a trade test followed
by an interview held on 18th, 19th and 20th November 1991 and on the basis D
of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, were regularised as
temporary Technician Grade II in respondent No. 2 institute on a probation
for a period of one year. Thereafter on successful completion of probation
they have been duly confirmed on their posts.

Aggrieved by this regularisation, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 filed 0.A. No. E
1430/92 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] and sought for a direction to
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to fill up the regular Group C post of Technician
Grade II only from their rank at least from the date their juniors were appointed
or considered in those posts. In this application, appellants were not made
parties. During the pendency of this application, another application [0.A. F
No. 2095/93] was filed seeking quashing of the regularisation of the appellants
as well as some of the respondents as Technician Grade II and to promote
them in their place. The Tribunal allowed both the applications [O.A. No.
1430/92 and O.A. No. 2095/93] and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to
consider the cases of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 for promotion to Technician G
Grade II/Grade C post and promote them to that from the date of promotion
of their juniors and fix their inter se seniority by quashing the appointments
of the appellants.

The High Court, on writ petition being filed against the same in W.P.
2308198 dismissed the same and upheld the order of the Tribunal. The writ H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A petition filed by the appellants as well as that of the CSIR were dismissed.
Against the order passed by the High Court in writ petition filed by CSIR,
special leave petition was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed
by this Court in limine and to those proceedings the appellants were not
parties. The appellants subsequently filed the present special leave petition
and leave was granted by this Court.
B
It is contended by the appellants which is supported by respondent
Nos. l and 2 that at the time of appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 12, only
Group D posts were available and, therefore, they were absorbed accordingly
and they could not be considered again for absorption in Group II/Grade C
since they had already derived the benefit of absorption under the scheme
C and that absorption also depended upon the availability of the post at a given
point of time. In other words, the seniors stood already absorbed in the lower
category. There were no vacancies of a higher scale at the relevant time of
subsequent consideration and hence their case for absorption in promotional
grade could not be reconsidered. It is contended that the appointment of
D appellants in posts vacant at the relevant point of time, though higher than
those of respondent Nos. 3 to 12, is valid in law. It is a matter of chance that
at the time of appointment of the appellants, posts in a higher grade were
vacant than at the time of appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 12. As
respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were already absorbed when the Technician Grade
II posts fell vacant, the appellants were given the chance to be appointed in
E those posts. The appointment was in the natural course of events and hence
cannot be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination.

The stand of the contesting respondents is that the absorption made
by the respondents was contrary to rules of seniority. Options have been
F called for and given in time by the contesting respondents for the purpose
of considering their cases for promotion or appointment in those posts.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were bound to prescribe an objective and rational
method of selection of candidates depending upon the job requirement and
fulfilment of necessary qualifications prescribed for the post. The fact that
consideration has not taken place though the contesting respondents were
G within the eligibility zone of promotion and possess necessary and desirable
qualification and are senior enough for consideration of promotion has not
been denied. The appointment of junior candidates by pick and choose
method without adhering to the principle of seniority is unsustainable in law.

Both the appellants and the contesting respondents were serving in the
H establishment of respondent Nos. l and 2 on daily wage basis or as casual
ANIS !'ARVEZ,._ DIR GEN. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 847

- workers. Respondents 3 t.o 12 were absorbed in Grade 'D' posts according A
to their seniority pursuant to a scheme framed by responden! No. I for
regularization of the services of daily wage workers giving preference to those
who had worked for 240 days in each of the two preceding years and were
fully qualified. The scheme was introduced by respondent No. I on 19th April,
1984 and the selection committee selected the candidates for absorption on
25th October, 1985. Respondents 3 to 12 were accordingly absorbed in the B
year 1985 against group 'D' posts. So far as the appellants are concerned they
were absorbed in different posts under a different scheme framed by respondent
No. I pursuant to a decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 6331 of 1988 and were
regularized against Group II/C posts on 9th December, 1991. It is ~lear that
so far as respondents 3 to 12 are concerned, they had already been absorbed C
six years earlier against Group 'D' posts according to their seniority and,
therefore, the question of considering them again for absorption under the
later scheme did not arise. In fact when the appellants were sought to be
absorbed against available posts in the establishment in the year 1991,
respondents 3 to 12 already stood absorbed in service and hence could not
claim benefit under the scheme framed pursuant to the orders of this Court. D

It is only by way of concession that a scheme of absorption was
•
framed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court and when there were
vacancies of higher scale at the relevant time and they were not serving in
those posts consideration of their cases for absorption in that Grade could E
not be considered. Further when the absorption of the appellants came up for
consideration the posts were available in Group II/Grade C and, therefore, the
cases of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 could not again be considered. In those
circumstances, absorption of the appellants in Group II/Grade C cannot be
faulted with. Though the Tribunal has thought fit to give a direction to
consider the cases o,f respondent Nos. 3 to· 12 for promotion to the higher F
scale, the cases of the appellants were considered not by way of promotion
but by way of absorption in those posts. Hence we do not think the matters
that have become final so far as respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were concerned
could be reopened and if that process goes on every time a person has to
be absorbed in the service those who have been absorbed earlier will have
to be considered again when the higher post becomes available and in such G
an event, the process cannot be completed.

In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders
,
made by the High Court and that of the Tribunal and dismiss the applications
tiled by respondent Nos. 3 to 12 before the Tribunal. No costs. H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A I.A. Nos. 2-3 in SLP(C) No. 18382/1999

In the light of the order we have made in C.A. No. 2935/2000, it is
unnecessary to deal with the relief sought for in I.A. Nos. 2-3 in SLP(C) No.
18382/1999. The I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

B KKT. Appeal Allowed.
I.As disposed of.

•