A K SARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated August 3, 1995 in Original Application No. 54 of 1991. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

(2.) In the original application before the Tribunal their claim for regularisation having been rejected, it was contended that the modification made by the proceedings dated July 30, 1990 modifying the promotion order dated August 2, 1988 was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It is contended by the appellants that the original order could not be modified after about two years; that they must be treated to have been regularly appointed Law Assistants; that they could not be deprived of the benefits thereof and that they cannot also be compelled to participate in the selection to be held subsequently. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the appellants were not selected for promotion which is a requirement under the relevant rules and were also not empanelled for regular promotion. Thus their promotion was purely on ad hoc basis given in the exigencies of service and, therefore, rectification of the mistake by inclusion of the words "ad hoc" cannot be treated as improper nor the earlier order could confer any right upon them to be treated as regular promotees.

(3.) The Tribunal first adverted to the question of the violation of the principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the appellants to put forth their say before the modification made by the department in regard to the nature of their promotion to the post of Law Assistant. The Tribunal noticed that against the orders made for ad hoc promotion representations were filed by the appellants and those representations were considered and rejected and, therefore, even if the original orders modifying the nature of their promotion were to be set aside on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, it would only mean that another opportunity had to be given to the appellants and, therefore, if such an opportunity had been given, all that they could have done is to disclose the facts which had already been disclosed in the course of their representations. On that basis the Tribunal held that non-issue of a notice before the orders impugned in the proceedings could not vitiate the same.