RADHAMANI K Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP(C) Nos. 19549 of 2009 and 20263/2008 were filed against Ext. P5 common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 875/2005 and 146/2006. Petitioner in WP(C) 19549/2008 is a third party. Petitioners in the other writ petition are respondents 16, 13, 15 and 14 respectively in OA 875/2005. The order impugned before the Tribunal is Annexure A4 order dated 09/11/2005. Assailing the same order, the petitioner in WP(C) 30307/2006 preferred the application OA 861/2005 before the Tribunal. In OA 875/2005 and 146/2006, the Tribunal, while allowing the applications, set aside the order impugned which contains a list of 22 candidates, including the petitioners, selected from among Group D employees for promotion to Group C and directed the official respondents to prepare an yearly list. In OA 861/2005, the Tribunal declined to interfere with on finding that the applicant was not medically fit. The facts leading to the petitions are as follows: One third of the total posts in Group C is reserved for Group D employees having at least three years service. Group D includes six categories with different pay scales namely:

(2.) In OA Nos. 875/2005 and 146/2006, respondents contended that the applicants had not produced any documents to show that they are seniors to those who have been selected as per the impugned order and that the seniority in Group D is in the order of scale of pay; namely, those who are in the higher pay scale are enbloc senior to those in the lower pay scale irrespective of their joining date in the respective post. The written test and viva voce were conducted in proper manner and that the list of successful candidates in the order impugned is seniority cum merit and prayed for dismissal of the petition. In OA 861/2005 it was further contended that the applicant was omitted in the list as she was medically not fit.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the orders impugned. Though the conduct of the written test and viva voce was assailed, the applicants were not successful in establishing the same. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and documents, found that the test was conducted in a proper way. Before us, no argument was advanced regarding the manner in which the written test and viva voce were conducted or to show that the test was anyway vitiated. In the above circumstances, we find it needless to go into the dispute regarding the conduct of the written test or viva voce.