UNION OF INDIA Vs. N.RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for petitioners as well as party respondent. Party respondent was the applicant before the Tribunal who approached Tribunal seeking promotion similar to respondents 6 to 17 as per the combined provisional list that came to be announced on 01/02/2009. He pleads, the applicant and other party respondents were working somewhere in the same division and others were working in different divisions. Certain persons that is serial numbers 23 and 24 above him were also working along with him in Palakkad division. Serial numbers 23 and 24 are admittedly seniors to the applicant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the applicant, though Junior Engineer posts are available in different divisions, promotion has to be by considering zonal seniority of the feeder category. Therefore, if other Junior Engineers similar to that of the applicant were promoted in the same zone, applicant was also entitled for such benefit on par with his juniors was the contention raised by the applicant. So far as the merger that took effect from 01/01/2006, it is admitted by the petitioner department. Combined seniority was published based on the promotion of employees to Grade-I. It is not in dispute that as on 01/01/2006, there was no post of a Junior Engineer Grade-I. The party respondents and the applicant in every respect were on par with each other. Therefore, the tribunal felt there was no justification to treat the juniors of the applicant with a beneficial promotion, totally ignoring the case of the applicant.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel contends that the consequence of these orders of the Tribunal would lead to placing the respondent/applicant above his two seniors who are not party to the proceedings. Apparently, none of the party respondents in the O.A are made parties and incidentally they have not challenged the order of the Tribunal.