KRIPA SHANKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, "the Tribunal") dated 13.01.2006 in O.A. No. 1960/2004 and 31.7.2006 in RA No. 106/2006.

(2.) The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A. No. 1960/2004. He moved the Tribunal against an order dated 04.08.2004 by which the respondent no. 3 herein had been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, "CESTAT") and sought a direction for a review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter, "DPC"). It is undisputed that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were both Court Masters in CESTAT and respondent no. 3 was the senior of the two. However, the petitioner's principal contention was that respondent no. 3 did not possess the qualification for appointment as Assistant Registrar in CESTAT, inasmuch as he did not have a degree in law of a recognized university or equivalent. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner was, in fact, the senior most Court Master amongst those who were duly qualified and thus eligible for the promotion which was granted to respondent no. 3. The contention of respondent no. 3 was that he held the degree of Bachelor of General Law (hereinafter, "BGL") from Annamalai University which he had obtained after undertaking a two year correspondence course. The petitioner disputed the status of the said degree as one which was equivalent to a degree in law.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 13.01.2006, the Tribunal held that the said degree is recognized for the purpose of employment/promotion in the Central Government in view of a communication of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance dated 07.08.1998. However, the promotion of respondent no. 3 was quashed and a review DPC was ordered on the ground that the petitioner's case also ought to have been considered in the DPC. The petitioner sought review of this order to the extent that the respondent no. 3 had been found eligible for the post in question. The petitioner's application for review was however dismissed by the second impugned order dated 31.07.2006.