Seniority for Direct Recruit Section Officers Reckons from Date of Confirmation After Passing Mandatory SAS Examination

The 23 applicants were recruited through the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 1998 for the post of Section Officer (Accounts) in the Defence Accounts Department.

Upon appointment in 1998-1999, they were designated as "SAS Apprentices" and placed on probation.

A mandatory condition of their recruitment was to pass the Departmental Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) Examination (Parts I II) within two chances, failing which they faced discharge.

The applicants challenged the respondents' decision to reckon their seniority from the date of passing the SAS exam/confirmation rather than the date of their initial appointment as apprentices.

They sought to quash the orders dated 08.04.2016 and 11.11.2016 which denied the counting of probationary service for seniority and promotion.

1. Whether the seniority of the applicants should be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment as SAS Apprentices or from the date of their confirmation after passing the mandatory SAS Examination.

The Tribunal applied the recruitment rules of the Defence Accounts Department which stipulate that apprentices must pass the SAS Examination to be eligible for confirmation.

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. U. Joshi v. Accountant General (2003), which established that the State has the exclusive jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications and conditions of service, and employees have no vested right to claim that service rules remain unchanged.

The Tribunal also followed the coordinate bench decisions in Ranjit Kumar v. Union of India (Jabalpur Bench) and S. Semmel v. UOI (Chennai Bench), which held that a direct recruit Section Officer ranks below the last departmental candidate passing the SAS exam on the date the direct recruit takes regular charge.

The Tribunal reasoned that the recruitment process for Section Officers (Accounts) was conditional. The designation "SAS Apprentice" during the two-year probation period was a prerequisite stage where candidates had to demonstrate specialized proficiency in accounting.

The court found that because the failure to pass the SAS Examination resulted in discharge from service, the appointment was not "regular" until the examination was cleared. Thus, the period spent as an apprentice could not be counted toward seniority in the cadre of Section Officers.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicants' reliance on Deepak Sharma v. CAG, noting that the rules governing the Audit Department differ from those of the Defence Accounts Department.

It concluded that specialized knowledge of accounting principles is essential for the role, and seniority must follow the acquisition of such qualifications as per the specific recruitment conditions accepted by the applicants at the time of joining.

The court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the Original Application (OA), stating it was devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.