K KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has a history of about three decades and the grievance, still stated as not redressed, is against the action of the Management / Employer in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to refix his seniority, over and above the juniors who were given appointment only much after the induction of the petitioner to permanent service; reportedly on the basis of some staff notice issued after the permanent appointment given to the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the stand taken by the respondent / Management that the seniority is to be fixed with respect to the 'date of confirmation' and not with respect to the date of joining the service on a permanent basis and against their further version that when the date of confirmation is the same, seniority is to be reckoned on the basis of the relative merits of the candidates concerned.

(2.) The petitioner, in response to the notification issued by the second respondent, had applied for the post of Traffic Assistant on 28/07/1978. The petitioner was called for a written test as per Ext. P1 and on coming out successful, he was called for an interview vide Ext. P2 dated 15/12/1978. On proving the mettle, the petitioner was wait listed for appointment in the vacancies likely to arise, as borne by Ext. P3. Thereafter, the petitioner was instructed to undergo medical examination vide Ext. P4 and on completion of the procedural formalities, he was given appointment on temporary basis from 23/05/1979 to 22/06/1979 as per Ext. P5 order dated 18/05/1979.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that, but for the artificial breaks of two or three days, he was made to work continuously for different spells as borne by Ext. P6 series and Ext. P7 and finally, while working on temporary basis, the petitioner was given 'permanent appointment' as per Ext. P8 dated 17/10/1979, on the basis of the original application submitted by him on 28/07/1978 and the test and interview that followed. In other words, there was no subsequent written test, interview or medical examination before being appointed on permanent basis and hence, the petitioner contends that the vacancy in which he was made to work was a substantive vacancy and hence the date of appointment was liable to be reckoned as the date of officiation in the said post.