LAWS(APH)-2005-12-61

GUMMADI BABU RAO Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

Decided On December 28, 2005
GUMMADI BABU RAO Appellant
V/S
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are working in various capacities in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), seek a declaration that the order dated 8.11.2005, passed by the second respondent herein, communicating the decision, taken by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the orders, dated 13.7.2005, passed by this Court in W.P. No.16015 of 2004 and Batch. The matter relates to relaxation of standards in Part-I examination for the post of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO).

(2.) The next superior post for the petitioners is JAO. Appointment to that post is purely by way of promotion, but subject to passing of Part-I and n examinations, conducted for that purpose. The petitioners appeared in the Part-I examination held in the years 1999 and 2003. They did not secure the minimum qualifying marks. Drawing analogy from the relaxation granted by the respondents, in respect of the promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), the petitioners approached the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A. No.1313 of 2003. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A., on 6.1.2004, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners herein, for extending the benefit of reduction of qualifying marks in Part-I and n examinations for the post of JAO held in the years 1999 and 2003, on the same lines, as was done vide orders dated 10.3.2003, for the posts of JTOs. The respondents passed an order dated 7.4.2004, stating that it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P. No.16015 and 16413 of 2004. The writ petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the matter afresh, keeping in view the relaxation given for the posts of JTOs.

(3.) In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent considered the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioners. The same was communicated through the impugned order.