A T GAYAKWAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner, who was at the relevant time, working as a Studio Executive in the All India Radio at Dharwad was promoted to the post of Transmission Executive, on adhoc basis, by an order dated 21.3.1983. He was posted at Mangalore. The aforesaid; promotion though made on adhoc basis was on the recommendation of a regular departmental promotion committee. The petitioner continued to serve on adhoc basis till 23.10.1984, on which date he was appointed to the post of Transmission Executive on regular basis with effect from 21.8.1984. Contending that he was entitled to the benefit of service rendered by him as Transmission Executive on adhoc basis, during the period from 21.3.1983 to 21.8.1984, for computation of his seniority, he submitted several representations to the authority and the same not having been responded to favourably, the writ petitioner instituted O.A. No. 9/1997 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. The learned Tribunal, by judgment and order dated 1.7.1997 having answered the claims of the writ petitioner in the negative, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1.7.1997 passed by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) We have heard Mr.M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal negating the claims of the Writ petitioner would go to show that reliance was placed by the learned Tribunal on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officer's Association- Vs-State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1607. The learned Tribunal, on a consideration of the facts of the case, held that the adhoc appointment of the petitioner during the period in question to be covered by the corollary of proposition- 'A' set out in paragraph 44 of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and on that basis thought it proper to hold that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the adhoc service rendered by him for computation of his seniority in the cadre of Transmission Executive.