P.K. PAUL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 2196/2008. The issue involved in the present writ petition concerns the relative seniority between the promotees and direct recruits in the post of Junior Research Officer in Signals Intelligence Directorate of Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioners are direct recruits and the respondent Nos.3 and 9 are promotees.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. THIS was the 3rd round of litigation before the Tribunal. Insofar as this petition is concerned, it would be pertinent to only mention what happened in the 2nd round before the Tribunal. The 2nd round was when the petitioner herein filed OA No. 1719/ 2006 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by an order dated 27.07.2007 after elaborately considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nani Sha & Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors: 2007 (7) SCALE 521=AIR 2007 SC 2356. The decision of the Supreme Court in Nani Sha (supra) was quoted in extenso in the said order dated 27.07.2007 wherein several other decisions of the Supreme Court were also referred to including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. No. 1719/2006 by virtue of the said order dated 27.07.2007 by giving the following directions:-

(3.) WE are afraid we do not agree with this manner of dealing with the matter. It is absolutely clear that the speaking order did not at all consider the Supreme Court decision in Nani Sha (supra). As such, the speaking order was liable to be set aside on that ground alone because the clear direction of the Tribunal in the order dated 27.07.2007 was that the respondents should re-examine the aspect of the seniority between direct recruits and the promotees in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Nani Sha (supra). Since that had not been done by the respondent and the speaking order did not reflect any such consideration, the speaking order ought to have been set aside by the Tribunal. On the contrary the Tribunal side stepped the entire issue and decided against the petitioner by mis-interpreting the DOP&T clarification dated 03.03.2008. WE are clear that it is not a case of review inasmuch as the issue of seniority was pending and not had already been decided.