LAWS(KER)-2016-7-159

UNION OF INDIA Vs. P.M.VANAJA KUMARI

Decided On July 04, 2016
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
P.M.Vanaja Kumari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal directing the applicant to be considered for promotion to the post of Civilian Education Officer, which vacancy arose on 1.6.2007 and if found suitable to have the promotion, give retrospective effect notionally from the date of occurrence of the said vacancy.

(2.) The sequence of events reveals that, the 1st respondent herein had commenced his service as a Civilian Instructor on casual basis in 1983 and his service was regularised in April, 1985. The post was upgraded as Civilian Educational Instructor Grade -I on 12.9.2002. The next post in the channel of promotion is that of Civilian Educational Officer in the scale of pay Rs.7500 -12000, which was created in the year 1993. Only 'three' vacancies were available in that cadre. By virtue of the 'vacancy -based roster', which was being followed, a claim was put forth by the applicant. Annexure A4 order came to be passed on 19.4.2007, rejecting the claim for the reason that, though the applicant was having the requisite extent of 3 years of regular service in the cadre of Civilian Educational Instructor Grade -I, for being considered for promotion to the post of Civilian Educational Officer, the applicant was placed only at Sl.No.17 (which appears to be a mistake and it ought to have been '16') in the seniority list of Civilian Educational Instructors and was not coming within the extended zone of consideration for promotion to the said post. This made the applicant to feel aggrieved, who approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.450/2007, with the following prayers.

(3.) The claim was resisted from the part of the Department raising several grounds and contending that the exercise pursued by the Department was perfectly in conformity with the relevant rules. Only those persons who were coming within the zone of consideration to the requisite extent, depending upon the number of vacancies could be considered and by virtue of the placement of the applicant, she was not eligible to be considered, as outside the zone of consideration. The Tribunal considered the issue and placing reliance on the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in P.Seshadri v. Union of India (1995 (3) SCC 552), it was held that the O.A. was liable to be allowed. It was accordingly, that the impugned order was set aside and a direction was given as borne by paragraph No.8 in the following terms.