LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-458

MS VEENA KOTHAVALE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 22, 2018
Ms Veena Kothavale Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petitions assail the order dated 04.03.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1194/2015, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim of Ms. Veena Kothavale, the Petitioner in W.P(C) No. 3087/2016 for quashing the seniority list dated 27.02.2015 of the post of Deputy Legislative Counsel (Grade III) (hereinafter referred to as "DLC") of Indian Legal Services (hereinafter referred to as "ILS") in which she had been shown as junior to Shri Diwakar, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8443/2016. The Tribunal has however, granted liberty to Ms.Kothavale to make a representation for working out her claim for her adjustment on the said post of DLC against direct recruitment quota on the basis of the selection process in which she had been placed at the top of the panel, but had earlier given up her claim against direct recruitment quota by joining the said post of DLC against the promotee quota.

(2.) Mr. Diwakar Singh is also aggrieved by the same order of the Tribunal impugned by Ms.Veena Kothavale, in so far as it grants liberty to Ms.Kothavale to make a representation and directs that till her representation is decided, his promotion to the post of Additional Legislative Counsel would remain provisional. It may be noted that Shri Diwakar Singh is Respondent No.5 in W.P(C) 3087/2016 filed by Ms. Veena Kothavale. Vide this common judgment, we are deciding both the Writ Petitions and for the sake of convenience, Ms. Veena Kothavale who is the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3087/2016, is being hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner, while Shri Diwakar Singh is being hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.5 as per their position in W.P.(C)No.3087/2016.

(3.) The Petitioner had filed the aforesaid O.A. challenging the final "Seniority List" dated 27.02.2015 of DLC of ILS in the Legislative Department, Government of India, wherein she had been placed as junior to Respondent No.5 even though, ever since their appointment/promotion to the post of DLC, she had always been placed as senior to him in the successive seniority lists issued in 2010, 2011 and 2014.