DR. PON SUBBIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 27.2.2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in O.A. No. 369/2009 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order the petitioner's prayer to quash the revised seniority list of Professors/Deputy Directors of Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, (for short 'the CIIL') as on 1.7.2005 is rejected. Consequently the Tribunal has refused to quash the order issued in favour of the 5th respondent by the 3rd respondent relating to entrustment of additional charge of CIIL, Mysore, and also the other consequential reliefs sought for by the petitioner are rejected. The records reveal that the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are working in CIIL, Mysore, which comes under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by direct recruitment vide order dated 24.6.1980 in CIIL, Mysore, by the respondents. Subsequently, he was appointed as Reader -cum -Research Officer by the order dated 17.8.1984 by Government of India on recommendation of Union Public Service Commission (for short 'the UPSC'). The said appointment to the post of Reader is by direct recruitment in terms of Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating to CIIL and its Regional Languages Center.

(2.) RECRUITMENT to certain posts of CIIL and its Regional Centers is governed by rules called "Central Institute of Indian Languages and its Regional Languages Centers (Group A and Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987. The Professor -cum -Deputy Director's post is to be filled up by direct recruitment only, as is clear from the said rules; so also the post of Reader -cum -Research Officer/Principal also should be filled up by direct recruitment in consultation with UPSC. Even the post of Lecturer -cum -Junior Research Officer shall be filled by direct recruitment. Thus it is clear all the posts such as Lecturer, Reader and Professor shall be filled up by direct recruitment only under the relevant Rules of CIIL, Mysore. The petitioner was recruited and appointed to the post of Lecturer and subsequently to the post of Reader, pursuant to the said rules.

(3.) SRI . Phadke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of professor on 26.11.2002, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed as professors through direct recruitment on 26.5.2003 and 16.7.2003 respectively; since the promotion of the petitioner to the post of professor is much earlier to the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Professor by direct recruitment, seniority list at the first instance was rightly prepared by the Institute placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 3 i.e., above respondent Nos. 5 and 6; absolutely no valid reasons are forthcoming to revise the seniority list for placing respondent Nos. 5 and 6 above the petitioner; respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed above in the seniority list, only with a view to see that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 enjoy the post of Directors of CIIL, Mysore and to avoid the petitioner's valid claim for the said post. According to him the rules provide for promotion to the post of Professor and therefore, the petitioner was rightly promoted as Professor. The sum and substance of the submission of the petitioner's counsel is that since the petitioner was promoted as Professor under the Rules much prior to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Professor, he should be placed above respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the seniority list of Professors.