VINAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. KIRAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The matter in dispute is regarding promotion of respondent No. 1, Smt. Kiran Gupta, who appears to have worked as Junior Draftsman in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'NER Gorakhpur"). On her request she was transferred to Allahabad and joined on 16.4.1993. According to the consent given by her, she was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Junior Draftsman. A Cadre Re-structuring Scheme was introduced by the Railway on 27.1.1993 whereby it was provided that if increase number of posts had not been reduced the employees may be given promotion on the next higher post. Furthermore, respondent No. 1 alongwith the petitioners appeared in the examination for the post of Senior Draftsman held in July, 1996 and then respondent No. 1 claimed promotion in the Cadre Re-structuring Scheme from NER, Gorakhpur. Objections were filed by the petitioners inter alia, that the seniority lists maintained by the NER, Gorakhpur and Northern Railway, Allahabad are different as they are distinct and separate divisions and that respondent No. 1 had given her consent for being placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Junior Draftsman and she failed in the examination of Senior Draftsman, hence she has no right to be considered for giving seniority in the Cadre Re-structuring Scheme from NER, Gorakhpur Division. Petitioners filed O.A. No. 724 of 1998 challenging the orders dated 24.6.1996, 19.1.1998 and 18.6.1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT") whereas respondent No. 1 filed O.A. No. 929 of 1998 claiming implementation of the order dated 19.1.1998.

(2.) It appears that before the CAT respondent No. 1 had produced a letter dated 18.6.1998 and the Note-sheet of the Northern Railway on the basis of which the CAT came to the conclusion that there were four posts of senior Draftsman existed in Allahabad and, therefore, procedure for appointment by promotion through examination could not have been undertaken, hence respondent No. 1, Smt. Kiran Gupta in this writ petition was entitled to be promoted on the post of senior Draftsman.

(3.) In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the CAT has failed to consider that there was no post of senior Draftsman in the year 1993 falling in Allahabad and in any view of the matter, respondent No. 1 having been given her consent of being posted in this division and placed at the bottom of the seniority list she could not have been posted as senior Draftsman.