MOLLY GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2017 in OA No. 600 of 2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner who was the applicant and that original application had approached the Tribunal with the claim that she was entitled to be promoted as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) by ante-dating her promotion with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy. This claim was on the basis that since the persons who were promoted as MTS in 2008-2009 were found entitled to vacancies which arose during 2001 etc. by an order of the Tribunal which has since been upheld by this Court and by the Supreme Court. She also claimed that she was entitled to be considered for further promotion counting her service with effect from the date on which the vacancies had arisen. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the appointment of the petitioner was by direct recruitment (as held by the Supreme Court in Y.Najithamol and ors vs Saumya and ors - Ext R.2 along with the reply statement of respondents before the Tribunal), the petitioner/applicant was not entitled to any relief. In other words, it was held that the person who got selection on the basis of direct recruitment could not claim that on the existence of earlier vacancies being shown they should be given an earlier date of appointment at least on notional basis. This order is under challenge before us.

(2.) Sri. M.R Hariraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that several persons who were seniors of the petitioner have been found entitled to be adjusted against earlier vacancies and resultantly and on such an adjustment being made she would have got a chance to be promoted against vacancies in the year 2009. He would submit that the denial of such promotion with effect from an earlier date is arbitrary and illegal. He would therefore urge that we should set aside the order of the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Sri.T.V Vinu learned Central Government Counsel draws our attention to the Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010 (Annexure R-3 before the Tribunal) to contend that the appointment of the petitioner, was under these Rules and that these Rules provide that the appointment as MTS would be on the basis of selection and it was not a promotion based merely on seniority. He would also submit, on the basis of instructions received by him, that the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the care of Postal Assistant with effect from 28.10.2019 and has thereafter retired from service as Postal Assistant, Karimmanoor on 28.2.2020. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.317/2016 where this issue has been specifically considered.