S.SADASIVAN Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Devan Ramachandran, J 1. The petitioner in this original petition is the applicant in O.A No.703 of 2015, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short 'the CAT').

(2.) The petitioner had filed the original application, challenging Annexures-A1 and A2 orders issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'BSNL'), whereby the revised the provisional seniority list Nos. 6 and 7 of Telecommunication Engineering Services Group 'B', equivalent to SDEs, which were published, in implementation of the judgment of the CAT, Chandigarh Bench dated 25.08.2009. The petitioner challenges the seniority list so published, essentially on the contention that the said seniority list is not in compliance with the earlier order that he had obtained from the CAT Mumbai Bench in O.A No.488 of 1996. According to the petitioner, in the order issued by the CAT Mumbai, the question that was raised by him was, whether candidates who had undergone training at different points of time should be placed in the seniority as per the date of their joining or by reckoning the percentile of marks obtained by them in such departmental test. The petitioner asserts that in Annexure-A3, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the candidates have to be placed in the seniority list taking into account the date of their initial appointment order, without referring to the date on which they have completed the training subsequently.

(3.) It appears that much after Annexure-A3 order was issued by the CAT, Mumbai, the competent Authorities of the BSNL had recalled the seniority list, in purported compliance of the directions in the said order and had issued a new seniority list in the year 2005. The pleadings show that this seniority list was then challenged by the petitioner initially in a writ petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, which was thereafter transferred to the CAT, Mumbai Bench and numbered as Transfer Application No.6 of 2009. The learned Tribunal considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and held that the ratio of 75:25, mandated by the applicable Rules for appointment to the post of SDE through the channels of promotion and direct recruitment respectively, was valid in law and thus approved the seniority list that was impugned before it. This order of the learned Tribunal has been placed on record as Annexure-A14. It transpires that this order was challenged by several persons before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which finally culminated in Annexure- A15 order, wherein, the Hon'ble Court unequivocally found the directions given in the order of the Tribunal to be legal and valid and thus dismissed all such SLPs.