DHOBEI PATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the order dated 14.3.2000 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack passed in O.A. Nos.607 of 1992 and 673 of 1993. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A. No.673 of 1993 and opposite party No.5 was the applicant in O.A. No.607 of 1992.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the two Original Applications before the Tribunal are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Stenographer on 17.11.1981 whereas opposite party No.5 was appointed as a Junior Stenographer on 14.7.1983. The next promotional post is the post of Senior Stenographer. Out of the total number of posts of Senior Stenographers, 50% are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, 25% are to be filled up through limited Departmental Competitive Examination and the rest 25% are to be filled up on the basis of speed test from amongst eligible Junior Stenographers who have completed six years of service on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. On 24.7.1991 applications were called for from the eligible Junior Stenographers for promotion to the post of Senior Stenographers through speed test. On 22.9.1991 the test was conducted and the petitioner and opposite party No.5 participated in the test. On 23.9.1991 result was published and three candidates were declared to have passed. Opposite party No.5 was placed at sl.No.1, the petitioner was placed at sl.No.2 and one G.C. Tripathy was placed at sl.No.3. All the three of them were directed to appear before the D.P.C. on 25.9.1991 and after the interview the opposite party No.5 was selected and was appointed on officiating basis by order dated 28.9.1991 as a Senior Stenographer with effect from 26.9.1991. By order dated 1.10.1992, the probation period of opposite party No.5 as Senior Stenographer was completed and he was granted the first increment. On the basis of the representation filed by the present petitioner, the opposite party No.5 was reverted back to the post of Stenographer (Junior) on the ground that such promotion was through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and inadvertently the written examination having not been conducted, the opposite party No.5 had been wrongly given promotion. The order of reversion was passed on 21.11.1992. Thereafter on 25.11.1992 applications were called for to fill up the post of Senior Stenographer through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the Junior Stenographers who had completed three years of continuous service as on 1.1.1993. Opposite party No.5 challenged the order of reversion before the Tribunal in O.A. No.607 of 1992. Two interim prayers were made in the said Original Application, one for a direction to the authorities not to hold any written test for promotion through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and also to keep the order of reversion in abeyance. The Tribunal kept the order of reversion in abeyance by way of interim measure. The petitioner filed an application for intervention in the said Original Application and prayed for vacating the interim order. Though his application for being impleaded as a party was allowed, the interim order was not vacated and it continued till hearing of the Original Application. The petitioner having failed to get the interim order vacated, filed another Original Application vide O.A. No.673 of 1993 on 12.11.1993 challenging the promotion of opposite party No.5 to the post of Senior Stenographer and also prayed for a direction to the Department to promote him to the post of Senior Stenographer from 26.9.1991 on the basis of the speed test conducted against seniority-cum-fitness quota. He also prayed for quashing the notice dated 25.11.1992 calling for applications to hold the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to fill up the post of Senior Stenographer.

(3.) The Department filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the test conducted in September, 1991 was a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination but by oversight the written examination could not be conducted. This mistake was detected only after receipt of a representation from the present petitioner after which a decision was taken to revert opposite party No.5 and hold a fresh test to fill up the post of Senior Stenographer through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The stand of opposite party No.5 was that in the speed test conducted in response to notification dated 24.7.1991 he stood first and thereafter all the three candidates selected in the test appeared before the D.P.C. The D.P.C. also selected him for which he was given promotion. He was kept under probation and after completion of probation period, he was granted increment. The further case of opposite party No.5 is that he having been promoted to a substantive post could not have been reverted without any notice to show cause or in absence of a proceeding. The Tribunal came to a finding that the promotion effected in the year 1991 was through a speed test and on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. However, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation.