KAILASH CHANDRA RAJAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

(2.) The appellant is a Trains Clerk and a candidate for promotion as Goods Guard, Grade C. One of the conditions for eligibility for promotion is five years' service as Trains Clerk. The appellant was appointed as Trains Clerk on temporary basis in June, 1979 and was regularised in January, 1982. The period of five years has to be calculated with reference to 1986 when the matter of promotion was taken up. The appellant has been held by the authorities in the Department to be ineligible for promotion on the ground that he did not have requisite experience of five years as a Trains Clerk, as he was regularised only in January, 1982. The appellant was, therefore, not permitted to sit for the promotional examination held on 27-11-1987. On the other hand, the appellant contends that his earlier experience as Trains Clerk from June, 1979 onwards when he held a temporary appointment should be taken into account.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the authorities, the appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an interim order pending decision of the case, permitted the appellant to appear at the relevant examination being held for promotion but directed that the result would be kept in a sealed cover. The appellant accordingly appeared at the examination and his result was kept in a sealed cover. However, on final hearing, the Tribunal has dismissed the appellant's application by the impunged judgment. One of the reasons for dismissal of the appellant's application as indicated in the judgment is that if the appellant's claim was allowed, it would result in the supersession of several other Trains Clerks, who are senior to him. The appellant disputed the correctness of that position. The special leave petition was adjourned on the prayer of the respondent for filing a counter-affidavit to indicate the number of such Trains Clerks who may be superseded. Now, it is admitted on behalf of the respondent that the statement of the appellant is correct and that if he succeeds he would not be superseding anyone of his seniors.