THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 29130 OF 1997 DATE: 21-3-2007 Between: 1. Sri M.Venkata Narayana and 4 others ….. Petitioners and 1. The Zonal Manager (South), Food Corporation of India, Madras and another ….. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 29130 OF 1997 ORDER: Heard Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation. Sri B.Anjaneyulu would submit that petitioners 1 and 4 took voluntary retirement in 2004. Petitioners, five in number, are all employees of the Food Corporation of India. They underwent a test and interview for appointment to the post of Typist on 26th/27th of September, 1976 and were empanelled at Sl.Nos.22, 26, 28, 30 and 32 respectively. Petitioners joined duty on 7.9.1977. The Food Corporation of India is divided into five zones and the four southern states of the country constitute one zone. Selections were held separately for each zone. The post of Typist constitutes the feeder channel for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Grade III (General). Petitioners were denied promotion as Assistant Grade III in the selections held in 1988 and 1994 on the ground that only persons seniors to them were promoted. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents had reckoned the date of joining duty as the criteria for fixation of seniority in the post of Typists and as a result while the petitioners were placed from Sl.No.643 onwards in the seniority list of Typists, Sri T.S.Kumar, though junior to them, was shown at Sl.No.640. A specific reference is made in the affidavit to the cases of Sri V.S.Sharma and employees from the State of Kerala to contend that though they form part of the subsequent selection list, these persons were shown above the petitioners in the seniority list of Typists and as a result were promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Grade III. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that a seniority list has to be prepared for the zone as a whole and that seniority is determined under Regulation 16(1) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations in the order of merit in which these candidates were selected for appointment by the selecting authority, that persons appointed pursuant to an earlier selection, being seniors to those were appointed pursuant to a subsequent selection, were entitled to have their seniority fixed according to their date of selection in different units. While Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the respondent has given a go- bye to Regulation 16(1), had reckoned the inter-se seniority of Typists with reference to their date of joining duty, though the Regulations require their inter-se seniority to be determined on the basis of their selection, Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation would contend to the contrary and submit that the respondents had acted strictly in accordance with Regulation 16(1) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971. Since the controversy in this writ petition relates to the manner in which seniority is to be determined it is useful to refer to Regulation 16(1) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, which reads thus:- “16. Seniority: Seniority of employees appointed shall be determined as follows: (1) Direct recruits: The relative seniority of all direct recruits will be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment by the selecting authority; persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection” Appointment to the post of Typists is by direct recruitment and the principles governing fixation of seniority for direct recruits under Regulation 16(1) are alone applicable. While Regulation 16(1) requires the relative seniority of direct recruits to be determined by the order of merit in which the candidates are selected for appointment by the selecting authority, it also provides that persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection would be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection. Thus, it is only if Sri V.S.Sharma and Sri T.S. Kumar were appointed as a result of the selections held prior to the selection of the petitioners as Typists, would the respondent be justified in placing them above the petitioners in the seniority list of typists. Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would place before this Court a copy of the seniority list of Typists in support of his contention that the date of joining has been taken into consideration for determining seniority. The fact, however, remains that neither Sri T.S.Kumar nor Sri V.S.Sharma, above whom the petitioners claim seniority, have been arrayed as respondents in this writ petition and in their absence the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. That, however, does not absolve the respondents of acting in strict compliance with Regulation 16(1) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations. Ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are permitted to submit a detailed representation to the 1st respondent giving details of persons who, according to them, were erroneously placed above them in the seniority list of typists and the Zonal Manager is directed, after causing verification of the records, to determine as to whether the seniority list of Typists has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 16(1) or not. It is made clear that Regulation 16(1) does not permit the respondent – corporation to reckon seniority on the basis of the dates on which the selected candidate joined duty and it is only the date of selection which is to be taken as the basis for determining seniority between candidates selected under two separate and distinct processes of selection. After considering the matter, with reference to the records and the relevant rules, the 1st respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that such a representation would be made by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation would submit that the said representation would be considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________ 21-3-2007 asp