UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOPAL KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India has filed the present writ petition against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Shri Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and others, has ordered fixation of notional seniority and other benefits to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as Chargeman Grade II. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had appeared in the examination for Chargeman Grade II as they obtained 5% less marks in the aggregate. They were graded as Supervisor Grade A and were subsequently promoted as Chargeman Grade II on passing of the examination.

(2.) IT may be seen that all the respondents had obtained in the initial examination 5% less marks in the aggregate than prescribed for valuation as Chargeman Grade II. Hence, they were not classified as Chargeman Grade II and graded as Supervisor Grade A. Similar dispute arose in case of Shri Purnendu Mukhopadhyay (supra ). In the said case, the application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. There were 95 applicants in the said case. The factual matrix in the said case came to be filed indicates that an apprenticeship training scheme was introduced in the year 1950 by the Union of India with a view to fill up various supervisory posts which would fall vacant in different Ordnance Factories and to appoint departmentally trained personnel to the vacant supervisory posts in different technologies for efficient work and better supervision. In 1965, the aforesaid scheme of 1950 was amended. Para 11 of the amended scheme provided that on satisfactory completion of the apprenticeship course, the apprentices will be graded by the Director General, Ordnance Factories as fit for appointment to the grades of Chargeman Grade I or II or Supervisors Grade 'a' or equivalent grades of Sr. Draughtsman, Sr. Planner, Sr. Rate Fixer and Sr. Estimators or unfit. Recruitment was to be made after a written test, interview, psychological test and medical examination. Subsequently, by a corrigendum dated 23-10-67, the aforesaid scheme was further modified by introducing the following provisions in Paragraph 11 thereof:-

(3.) THE applicants before the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal were appointed to the post of Supervisor Grade A. The promotional Channel is Chargeman Grade II and then Chargeman Grade I and thereafter Assistant Foreman, Foreman and upward. The applicants therein were placed as Chargeman I or Assistant Foreman. In January, 1980, it was informed that an examination would be held for determining the notional seniority of Ex-Supervisory Apprentices who have been graded as Supervisor 'a' due to marginal deficiency of marks and such of the Ex-Supervisory Apprentices who secured 5% less marks should be given another chance to appear at a gradation examination. The applicants were informed after a long lapse of time that they had secured 5% less marks but this fact was not intimated to them earlier in spite of repeated representations. It was a prayer made to restrain the respondent authorities from holding any examination and direction to the official respondents to grant the applicants seniority, promotion and all other benefits including financial benefits with effect from date immediately at the end of six months from the date of their original gradation considering the said date as the date of their appointment as Chargeman Grade II. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench granted them notional seniority. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 1991 (Union of India and others Vs. Shri Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and others ).