UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent was working as an Accountant in AIR, Alleppey in the year 1978. Thereafter, he was promoted as Administrative Officer and posted at the Doordarshan Kendra, Guwahati by order dated 29. 4. 1985. He could not join the post due to family circumstances. He submitted a representation to the second petitioner on 8. 5. 1985. On his representation, the second petitioner canceled the earlier order dated 20. 9. 1985 and changed the place of posting of the second respondent from AIR, Guwahati to AIR, Dharwad. The second respondent was relieved from AIR, Calicut on 5. 10. 1985 and he took charge as Administrative Officer at AIR, Dharwad on 11. 10. 1985. On 30. 10. 1989, the second respondent was promoted as Senior Administrative Officer and posted at the Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. Later, he was transferred to Trivandrum in the same capacity. On 1. 12. 1993, the second respondent was promoted as Inspector of Accounts on ad hoc basis and was posted at the Staff training Institute, Trivandrum. On 27. 1. 1994, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Director on ad hoc basis and was posted at Madras. On 8. 8. 1995, the first petitioner published a list of persons promoted on regular basis to the post of Deputy Director. Petitioners 3 and 4, who were juniors to the second respondent, were promoted to the post of Deputy Director, while the second respondent was not promoted. In the seniority list, the name of the second respondent is shown at Serial Number 20, whereas petitioners 3 and 4 are shown at 40 and 41. In the seniority list of Senior Administrative Officers, again, the name of the second respondent figures above the names of petitioners 3 and 4. The second respondent, therefore, filed O. A. No. 77 of 1997 to direct petitioners 1 and 2 to promote him as Deputy Director (Administration) on regular basis with effect from the date on which his juniors, viz. , petitioners 3 and 4 were promoted, and to give him all consequential benefits. This O. A. was allowed and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE main reason why the petitioners did not consider the second respondent eligible to be promoted as Deputy Director was because at the time when his name was considered by the DPC in October, 1993, the second respondent's service fell short by ten days. A copy of the Recruitment Rules has been produced before us by the petitioners and for the post of Deputy Director (Administration), Column 12 is relevant and the same is extracted below: -

(3.) LEARNED Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. R. Santhanam, appearing for petitioners 1 and 2 would submit that the second respondent has no right to be promoted and in fact, the Tribunal had erred in issuing directions on the basis of a mere Note.