P SRILAKSHMI Vs. NIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in the instant case is with regard to the seniority list of Senior Assistants prepared by the 1st Respondent Institute. The petitioner had filed objections to the said list and by impugned Memo dated 23-8-1994, the objections of the petitioner were rejected and the provisional list was confirmed without any change. In the said provisional list dated 1-6-1994, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No. 12 and Respondent No. 3 herein who is from the same cadre (Personal Secretaries - for short "PS') as the petitioner was shown at Sl.No. 6. Respondent No. 6 from the same cadre of Personal Secretaries was shown at Sl.No. 9. The other respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 are from the cadre of Secretarial Assistants and have been shown respectively at Sl.Nos. 7, 8,10 and 11 i.e., above the petitioner who is at Sl.No. 12. The main controversy, however, with regard to inter se seniority in the same cadre that is of Personal Secretaries, between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. Resolving the said controversy alone is necessary in this writ petition inasmuch as the respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 are from a different cadre and have been made a party to the above writ petition as they are persons likely to be affected by any decision in these proceedings as they are placed above the petitioner in the impugned Seniority List.

(2.) Brief particulars of the dates of joining, declaration of probation etc., of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are as under: Petitioner <FRM>JUDGEMENT_195_ALT6_1997Html1.htm</FRM> Respondents 4,5,7 and 8 were interviewed and appointed by a common order as Secretarial Assistants. Their date of joining is 8-4-1987, promoted as Senior Assistants on 1-7-1991, promoted to the post of Superintendent on 25-8-1994.

(3.) The petitioner has raised manifold contentions. Briefly they are, That the petitioner is senior to the respondents including the third respondent and that the petitioner's probation was declared before the 3rd respondent and that the petitioner was denied the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and Respondent No. 3 and others were promoted ahead of the petitioner ignoring the petitioner's seniority. That when the tentative list of Senior Assistants was prepared on 11-7-1992, petitioner's name was at Sl.No. 7, above respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 who were at Sl.Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. The 3rd respondent was at SLNo. 4. However, by provisional list dated 1-6-1994., the petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 12 below the respondents. Objections were accordingly filed by the petitioner and the same were rejected by the impugned order dated 23-8-1994 and on 25-8-1994, Respondent No. 3 along with respondents 4, 5, 7 and 8 were promoted to the post of Superintendents.