JITENDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying that the application may be allowed, Memo No. PGI -EII(I) -2014/F -54 dated 31.01.2014 passed by Assistant Administrative Officer and provisional gradation list of Personal Assistant dated 01.01.2013, whereby the seniority of the applicant have been wrongly fixed be quashed. The applicant is also claiming the seniority as per the roster point of reserved category as applicable to the Institute. Direction has been sought to the respondents No. 2 to 5 to fix the seniority of the applicant as per the roster point of Schedule Caste and also for counting of the ad hoc service of the applicant from the date of initial appointment i.e. 15.01.2001 in the interest of justice.

(2.) BACKGROUND of the matter is that the applicant joined PGIMER on 15.01.2001 on ad -hoc basis on the post of Stenographer against the quota for SC. His services were regularized on 02.11.2002. The respondents issued notice dated 04.06.2011 (Annexure P -2) regarding filling of 8 posts of Personal Assistant by promotion and 11 posts to be filled through Limited Departmental Examination Quota. The applicant appeared in the departmental test for both categories i.e. by way of promotion on 16.11.2011 and LDCE on 17.11.2011 and the results were declared vide office order dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure P -3 and P -3/A). After recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 15.12.2011, the applicant was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant on 16.12.2011 (Annexure P -4). The PGI administration circulated provisional gradation list dated 01.01.2013 to all the working Personal Assistants and invited objections regarding their seniority. The applicant submitted his representation in this regard as he was shown junior to some of the employees who were junior to him as stenographers (Annexure P -6). The representation was rejected through a non speaking order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P -9). The respondents did not give para wise findings on the objections raised by the applicant regarding the seniority list. It is also contended that the respondents have not considered the reservation policy and roster points have not been followed and thus persons junior to the applicant have been placed senior to him in the gradation list. It is further stated that respondents No. 6 to 8 have joined service as under:

(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5 preliminary objection has been taken that the private respondents whose appointment the applicant is praying for to be quashed were appointed in the year 2003 and hence the OA is barred by limitation and also by conduct of the applicant as he did not challenge their appointment earlier nor made any representation or appeal against their appointment. It has further been stated that the applicant was appointed in the Institute on ad -hoc basis on 15.01.2001 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 02.11.2002 alongwith others. Sh. Sandeep Kumar and Sh. Deepak Jugran, Stenographers, who were appointed by the Institute on regular basis duly funded by Dr. P.N. Chuttani Charitable Centre were placed in the combined seniority list/gradation list of Stenographers along with the applicant and other stenographers of the Institute. The applicant never objected to the same.