CSS Additional Secretary empanelment must apply the seven-year Joint Secretary Suitability List residency requirement.

The applicant, a Central Secretariat Service (CSS) officer recruited through the Civil Services Examination, 1981, was included in successive CSS select lists and was serving in the Director/Senior Selection Grade.

DoP&T’s Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2011 empanelled five officers of the applicant’s batch for appointment as Joint Secretary or equivalent, but the applicant was not initially approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

Following enhancement of the empanelment ceiling from 60% to 75%, the ACC, by DoP&T’s Office Memorandum dated 19 December 2012, empanelled the applicant as an additional Joint Secretary-level officer.

In 2018, two officers of her batch, including Ms. Sarita Mittal, were empanelled as Additional Secretaries, but the applicant was not considered on the ground that she lacked the requisite seven years’ residency in the Joint Secretary Suitability List.

The applicant contended that her Joint Secretary residency ought to be reckoned notionally from 2 August 2011, the date on which her batchmates were empanelled. She accordingly sought inclusion in the Joint Secretary Suitability List from that date and reconsideration for Additional Secretary empanelment.

Whether the applicant was entitled to be included in the Joint Secretary Suitability List with effect from 2 August 2011, notwithstanding her formal empanelment through the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 19 December 2012?

Whether, upon such inclusion, the applicant’s case for empanelment as Additional Secretary was required to be reconsidered under the applicable eligibility requirement of seven years’ residency in the Joint Secretary Suitability List?

Whether the respondents had wrongly applied the earlier 1996 eligibility formulation instead of the modified requirement prescribed by the Office Memorandum dated 20 July 2001?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was maintainable.

Under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 20 July 2001, CSS officers became eligible for empanelment as Additional Secretary upon completion of twenty years of Group ‘A’ service and at least seven years’ residency in the Joint Secretary Suitability List; this modified the earlier 1996 formulation and governed the applicant’s case.

The Tribunal also relied on the DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 2 August 2011 and 19 December 2012, under which the applicant’s batch was initially empanelled and the applicant was subsequently included following enhancement of the empanelment ceiling from 60% to 75%.

The DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 20 July 2010 further provided for in-situ promotion of CSS officers empanelled as Joint Secretaries in the SAG grade.

The Tribunal considered the principle affirmed by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. [respondent in W.P.(C) No. 806/2020], judgment dated 17 May 2023, that the benefit of retrospective empanelment or promotion pursuant to the enhanced 75% ceiling could be granted notionally, subject to the terms of the judgment.

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ reliance on the 1996 eligibility formulation was misconceived because the governing requirement had been modified by the Office Memorandum dated 20 July 2001.

The applicant had completed the requisite Group ‘A’ service, and her subsequent empanelment as Joint Secretary was expressly made in continuation of the 2 August 2011 empanelment after the ceiling was enhanced from 60% to 75%.

The language of the 19 December 2012 Office Memorandum indicated that the applicant was the additional officer approved from the same batch, raising the question whether her inclusion in the Joint Secretary Suitability List should relate back to 2 August 2011.

However, the record did not establish whether ACC empanelment automatically resulted in inclusion in the Joint Secretary Suitability List or whether the applicant had in fact received the corresponding in-situ promotion under the 20 July 2010 policy.

Since this factual and policy determination had not been adequately examined, the Tribunal directed the respondents to determine whether the applicant was entitled to Joint Secretary Suitability List status from 2 August 2011 and, if so, to reconsider her Additional Secretary case under the correct seven-year residency requirement.

The respondents were directed to re-examine whether the applicant should have been included in the Joint Secretary Suitability List with effect from 2 August 2011, the date on which her batchmates were included.

If the respondents found her so entitled, they were directed to place her case for Additional Secretary empanelment before the competent authority for fresh consideration under the applicable rules and guidelines.

The exercise was required to be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.