M BALADANDAPANI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 11.11.2002, dismissing O.A.No.638 of 2002 filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioner is presently working as Superintending Engineer under the Central Public Works Department. He had joined service as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the year 1972 and was appointed as Executive Engineer in December, 1978. Subsequently he was promoted as Superintending Engineer on ad-hoc basis in August, 1989. In October, 1994, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the question of regularisation of ad-hoc promotion of various Superintending Engineers including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he should have been regularised as Superintending Engineer with effect from 31.12.1987 and placed at Sl.No.71 of the seniority list, but was regularised with effect from 31.3.1991 and placed at Sl.No.116. At that stage, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.869 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad against the illegal supersession of juniors of 1973 and 1974 batches and non-regularisation of his service as Superintending Engineer with effect from 31.12.1987. THE said application was rejected by the Tribunal by judgment dated 5.3.1997. From the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner came to know that for the year 1982-83, an adverse entry to the effect "below average" had been made. Subsequently, the petitioner filed S.L.P.(C) No.19192 of 1997, wherein the Supreme Court while condoning the delay in filing of the Special Leave Petition, rejected the SLP in limine. THE subsequent Review Application filed by the petitioner was also rejected. THEreafter, the seniority list of the Superintending Engineers was issued in September, 1998 and the petitioner s seniority was shown at Sl.No.91, whereas he should have been shown at Sl.No.46, according to him. Representations made by the petitioner were rejected. THE petitioner thereafter filed O.A.No.638 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai with a prayer to set aside the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1982-83 and also to set aside the order of the Director General (Works) dated 14.10.1987 and direct him to upgrade the Annual Confidential Report from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.1985.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and carefully perused the various materials on record. After giving our anxious consideration to the questions raised, we are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner.