V SHANMUGASUNDARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. M. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. Karthik Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) representing the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Bharatha Chakravathy appearing for M/s Sai, Bharath and Ilan, learned counsel for the eighth respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] dated 15.4.2004 made in O.A. No. 221 of 2003 and to grant the original prayer in the petition to set aside the order dated 27.01.2003 issued by the second respondent and consequently include the name of the petitioners in the seniority list above the name of one S.Karunanidhi and also to promote the petitioners as Executive Engineer w.e.f. 27.01.2003.

(3.) ONCE again, they filed O.A. No. 221 of 2003. The said Original Application was resisted by both official and private respondents. The CAT held that there was no excess quota and the directly recruited Assistant Engineers have adequately represented in terms of their quota. In fact, the CAT found that the additional posts were created to accommodate several Assistant Engineers, who were sent on deputation to various other Departments such as Municipalities, Panchayats, Housing Boards, etc. If those who are on deputation posts were added to the regular sanctioned strength of 68, then the total comes to 109 posts. The CAT also held that out of the 109 posts, the direct recruits were occupying 22 posts, the balance 87 posts go to the promotees. If as contended by the petitioners the ratio is fixed only in terms of 68 original posts, then the quota for direct recruits will also go down and the direct recruits were also beneficiaries due to the sanction of additional posts. The CAT also held that by applying quota rota rule, they cannot get any seniority to a date in which they were never in service. It also found that the promotees were admittedly seniors to the petitioners. The CAT also referred to the earlier case filed by one G. Sekar in O.A. No. 493 of 2000 making a similar claim which was also dismissed. In that view of the matter, the CAT referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioners and rejected the same on the ground that the private respondents (promotees) were never appointed in excess of their quota. It also held that since no new seniority list has been published and the attempt of the applicants to move the CAT was premature.