RAFIQUE UDDIN BHARBHUIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, aggrieved by the promotion of the Respondent No. 5, who is his junior to him in the post of Store Clerk under the Respondent authorities, to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Technical), had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati (CAT), for directing the Respondent authorities (a) to give effect to his promotion to the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Tech) ["ASK(T)] from the date on which the Respondent was promoted instead of 12-1-2005, (b) to re-fix his seniority in the cadre of ASK(T) so as to place him above the Respondent No. 5 in the seniority list of ASK(T) and (c) to consider him for his further promotion to the higher post of Store Keeper (Tech) at par with the Respondent No. 5 on the basis of the seniority list so revised.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of Store Clerk on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission. In the seniority list of Store Clerk published on 31-12-1997, his name appeared at Serial No. 2 while the name of the Respondent No. 5 found a place at Serial No. 3 and that he continued to maintain his seniority vis-?-vis the Respondent No. 5 even after the promotion of the Store Clerk at Serial No. 1 to the post of ASK(T). According to the Petitioner, the next higher post of ASK(T) is to be filled up from amongst Store Clerks on the basis of seniority. In the year 2003, following the promotion of the incumbent, one post of ASK(T) fell vacant against which the Respondent No. 5 was promoted with effect from 1-11-2003 by overlooking his case though he is senior to him in the grade of Store Clerk. On the repeated representations made by him to the Respondent authorities, a meeting of the DPC was eventually held on 8-12-2004 resulting in his promotion to the post of ASK(T) with effect from 12-1-2005. On 14-6-2006, the Respondent authorities published the seniority list of ASK(T) as on 31-12-2005 wherefrom the Petitioner is alleged to have found that he had been made junior to the Respondent No. 5 in the cadre of ASK(T): his name found a place at Sl. No. 2 while the name of the Respondent No. 5 appeared at Sl. No. 1. To cut the long story short, the aforesaid actions of the Respondents prompted the Petitioner to move the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati ("CAT") for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The application was resisted by the Respondent authorities by filing their reply. The main contention of the Respondents was that promotion in their establishment was done on the basis of the roster points maintained by them and not on the basis of seniority, which should not be confused by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 5 was promoted against vacancy in the Roster Point 7, which was specifically reserved for Scheduled Caste community ("SC"). It was pointed out by the Respondents therein that the Director General, Geological Survey of India in his letter dated 9-1-2004 had clarified that if a vacancy falling on the reserved point was the only vacancy during the initial year of promotion, then such vacancy would be treated as unreserved, but in the event of the occurrence of more than one vacancy, the reserved (SC) vacancy falling on a particular point would be filled up by the SC candidate. According to the Respondents, on further verification of the Roster Points, it had been found by them that the initial promotion started in the year 1995, followed by the subsequent years of 1996 and 1998. It was thus contended by the Respondents that the single vacancy occurring in the post of ASK(T) in the year 2003 falling within the reserved category of SC could not be treated as unreserved as it was not the initial year of promotion. Consequently, the Respondent No. 5, who belong to SC community and was otherwise found fit and suitable for the post of ASK(T) was accordingly promoted to that post.