J.GOPALA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that, they have been appointed as a Assistant Loco Pilots on 26.05.1998 and 17.05.1999 respectively. They were further promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilots on 23.06.2005 and as Shunter on 03.06.2010. They have also completed the promotional training course for the post of Goods Driver and also possessed LM-16 certificate, which is essential for the post of Driver. The respondent by a notification dated 26.12.2007 sought to fill up the post of Loco Pilot Goods-ff in the scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. 106 posts were notified, out of which, 75 posts are unreserved, 17 posts were reserved for scheduled caste and 14 posts were reserved for scheduled tribes. The petitioners took up the examination. Two similarly placed persons expressed their unwillingness, even before the publication of the selection list. In the said list, the petitioners stood at Sl.Nos.70 and 71. Since the first petitioner possessed the required qualification, he was posted to work as Goods Driver by the order dated 23.09.2010. The other two persons challenged the very notification before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in O.A.Nos.525-526 of 2009 on the ground that the publication of the selection list is erroneous. By the order dated 24.03.2011, the same was partly allowed. It was held that it was not necessary to quash the entire fist but it set aside only so far as those two posts were concerned. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted with effect from 10.02.2012. Questioning the same and seeking promotion with effect from 30.08.2011, they filed the instant application before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. Hence, these petitions.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the promotion even though granted from 10.02.2012, should have been granted from 30.08.2011. That similarly placed persons have been granted promotion from 30.08.2011. The petitioners too are entitled for promotion from 30.08.2011.

(3.) The same is disputed by the respondents' Counsel. He contends that the petitioners were not qualified for promotion. Even then the qualification were relaxed in January, 2012. After the said relaxation, they were promoted in the next month. So far as giving promotion to the petitioners with effect from 30.08.2011 is concerned, the other candidates who have been granted promotion on 30.08.2011 are all far senior to the petitioners. Therefore, what has been done is in accordance with law.