CEO AND MEMBER SECRETARY, CENTRAL SILK BOARD Vs. MONCY ISSAC S/O C C ISSAC; H L VENKATESH MAJOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the Central Silk Board [for short 'the Board'] Represented by the Chief Executive Officer and Member Secretary, is directed against the order dated 24.1.2012 passed in Transfer Application No.481/2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 and two other persons had been appointed as Junior Technical Silk Inspector in the year 1982. The petitioner Board had published consolidated inter se seniority list of Junior Technical Silk Inspectors in the Board as on 30.11.1984. It appears that at the relevant point of time in respect of persons selected simultaneously, seniority was required to be assigned based on merit, but instead the seniority list indicating six persons who had joined as Junior Technical Silk Inspectors in the year 1982 seniority was not assigned as per the ranking they had obtained on merit basis. The first respondent though had obtained second position in the merit list, he had been placed below the respondents 2 to 4. In fact, the first person who was in the merit ranking did not join duty and therefore in the list of Junior Technical Silk Inspectors, first respondent stood at first position. Be that as it may, time passed by and the first respondent continued to figure below respondents 2 to 4 in the seniority list.

(3.) It appears the first respondent had made representation from the year 1989 onwards realizing that his seniority had not been assigned in a proper manner and the same did not elicit any response. Ultimately, the efforts of the first respondent did bear some fruits as it appears the petitioner Board issued intimation dated 19.08.2004 apprising the respondents that as per the ranking assigned in the merit list, seniority should have been in the order of the first respondent being in the first position, second respondent below the first respondent, third respondent below the second respondent and in between one person was there, but he has since retired and fourth respondent below the third respondent.