INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH Vs. SHAKTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 23.10.2008, passed by a Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 399/HP/2007, whereby the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'original applicant') has been held entitled to promotion to the cadre of T -1/Category -1 from the date the 2nd respondent has been promoted, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the '1st respondent') has preferred the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the same.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nut -shell are that the original applicant was initially recruited as Supporting Staff Grade -I on 25.7.1979 by the 1st respondent and subsequently promoted as Supporting Staff Grade -II on 14.10.1996. In the meanwhile, he acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1995 while in service. The promotion from the cadre of Supporting Staff Grade -II is to the next higher cadre i.e. the Technical cadre T -1 in Category -1. According to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, a member of service in the cadre of Supporting Staff Grade -II having matriculation as qualification with five years experience in the feeder category is eligible for promotion on the basis of merit however, with due regard to seniority. The 1st respondent allegedly issued guidelines dated 14.7.1997, making a provision thereby that the experience of five years in the feeder category gained after acquiring the qualification of matriculation will be counted for the purpose of promotion to the higher post i.e. Technical cadre T -1 in Category -1. Some of the affected and similarly situated persons had assailed the guidelines before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing a bunch of original applications and the Principal Bench while holding the guidelines, so issued as illegal and contrary to the provisions contained under statutory rules had allowed the said original applications so filed vide order dated 8.11.2009. After the said decision, the 1st respondent had circulated the seniority list of Supporting Staff Grade -II category in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 50, whereas, the 2 respondent who was appointed as Supporting Staff Grade -I on 25.6.1985 was promoted to Grade -1 on 29.1.1998 i.e. much after the applicant was shown at Serial No. 286. The 1st respondent however, issued another seniority list dated 22.7.2006 in line with the aforesaid guidelines dated 14.7.1997 which were even disapproved by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, assigning therein erroneously Serial No. 167 to the applicant, whereas, Serial No. 39 to the said respondent. Not only this, but on the basis of the seniority list so circulated, DPC was convened and the 2nd respondent irrespective of being junior to the applicant was promoted to the cadre T -I vide office order dated 26.9.2006/17.11.2006 retrospectively w.e.f. 26.10.2006. Against the promotion of the 2nd respondent in supersession of the applicant, he submitted a representation on 10.11.2006, however the same was rejected on 19.9.2007.

(3.) THE Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal while allowing the original application preferred by the applicant has held him entitled to promotion as T -I category -I post with all consequential benefits from the date the 2nd respondent has been promoted as such.