P. SUBRAMANIYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 18958 of 2007 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Madras, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the reasons given by the learned Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that both, the High Court as well as the learned Tribunal, have committed a grave error in directing to place the original applicant-respondent No. 4 herein in the seniority list above the appellant herein. It is an admitted position that the appellant herein was promoted to the post of the Chargeman Grade-II in the LDCE quota. It is an admitted position that, as per the rules, the seniority was required to be fixed as per the quota-rota rule and as per the rule position in that year the direct recruitee was to be placed below the LDCE quota, since the LDCE selection process was treated as the Fast Track promotion. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 4 did not accept his appointment/promotion in LDCE quota though selected and offered and he continued his appointment as a direct recruitee. The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court granted the relief to respondent No. 4 on the ground that the department ought to have informed and/or advised the employee with respect to the seniority to be fixed on the basis of rota-quota rule and as the department failed to do so, respondent No. 4 cannot be denied his legitimate right to be placed at an appropriate place in the seniority list, as otherwise also he was selected for a promotion in the LDCE quota also. On the aforesaid terms, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court are not justified in directing to put respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant who, in fact, was appointed in the LDCE quota and the respondent No. 4 never accepted his promotion in the LDCE quota. It was for the employee to know the rule. The department was not expected to advise and/or tell the employee about how the seniority will be fixed and/or about the rota-quota rule. As observed above, the fact remains that the appellant was appointed in the LDCE quota and in the very year, respondent No. 4 was appointed as a direct recruitee. As observed hereinabove, as per the rule position in that year, the direct recruitee was to be placed before the LDCE, therefore, respondent No. 4 was rightly placed below the appellant in the seniority list being a direct recruitee. Under the circumstances, both, the High Court as well as the learned Tribunal committed an error in directing to place respondent No. 4 in the seniority list above the appellant.