V.K.THUKRAL Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 11.9.1998 filed as Annexure P-13 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 907-HP of 1996 and also quash the proceeding dated 12.10.1992 filed as Annexure P-8, whereby the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, fixed the criteria for determining the seniority of the incumbents of the post of Field Exhibition Officer appointed to Grade III of the Central Information Service and also as a consequence thereof to quash the seniority list dated 1.8.1996 filed as Annexure P-12 which is a list fixing the inter se seniority of senior grade of Indian Information Service, Group 'B' (Officers) as on 30.6.1995 corrected upto 31.10."1993.

(2.) The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal below was in error in considering that the Petitioner's claim before the Tribunal was a belated one and in this respect it has omitted to keep into account the fact that immediately after the proceeding dated 12.10.1992 the Petitioner has been making representations and it is only in 1996 when the seniority list came to be prepared and circulated that the Petitioner was really aggrieved and immediately he has moved the Tribunal below and, therefore, the reason assigned for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner is not tenable. Argued the learned Counsel further, that the Tribunal below has not chosen to consider the other valid claim made on merits and this also vitiates the impugned proceeding. In support of the claim made for the Petitioner that his claim for seniority, as made by him, is justified in law, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on the decisions reported in Devdutta and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1991 Supp2 SCC 553; Wing Commander J. Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 1982 2 SCC 116; M.S. Makashi and Ors. v. I.M. Menon and Ors., 1982 1 SCC 379 and K. Madhavan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 1987 4 SCC 566, besides inviting our attention to an unreported decision of the Apex Court which was found to have been referred to and extracted in the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1394/91 in what is known as Dharmana's case. The relevant portion has been also extracted for the Petitioner in paragraph 17 (v) of the petition. The learned Counsel at length invited our attention to all these materials including the judgments noticed above and also the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) dated 16.11.1989 in OA No. 44/89 and 514/89.

(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, as also from the material placed on record, the claim of the Petitioner is that he should be given seniority from the year 1980 and not from the year 1986 as has been done by the authorities and the Tribunal below in paragraph 5, in our view, has given justifying reasons to highlight the belated nature of the claim and the need to reject the same at this point of time. The submission made before us that it is only after the representations made on the passing of orders dated 12.10.92 the ultimate seniority list that is challenged has been made in 1996 and circulated, on which he is aggrieved, cannot be said to be a genuine or reasonable or plausible explanation to cover up the lapse committed by the Petitioner. The seniority list in question came to be finalised in the light of the directions and the guidelines and the criteria fixed by the Government of India in their proceeding dated 12.10.1992. The Petitioner was alive and came to know of the orders of the Government of India dated 12.10.1992 long before and as claimed made representations also in this regard. The grievance before the Tribunal below and before us is not so much that the inter-se seniority fixed under the impugned list filed as Annexure P-12 is in violation or contravention of the criteria and the principles as well as guidelines laid down in the orders of the Government dated 12.10.1992. On the other hand, the grievance being that even the criteria fixed in the orders dated 12.10.1992 does not take into account the relevant principles for according protection or what it is called, the preservation of the earlier service when at times the post held by the Petitioner was said to be not included in the cadre the orders passed in 1992 should have been challenged then and there. That being the position, no infirmity or exception could be taken to the reasoning of the Tribunal below that viewed from the date of the Government order dated 12.10.1992 the claim projected by the Petitioner before the Tribunal below is belated. The orders of the Government dated 12.10.1992 itself as found noticed therein, appears to have been passed taking into account the decision rendered by not only the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) but also that of the Ernakulam Bench and that too after consulting the Union Public Service Commission, in this regard. Since the fixation of inter-se seniority was already sufficiently delayed and that to be and had been at last fixed pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal and the decision taken by the Government, it should not be allowed to be challenged after such a long time so as to unsettle the things which had, at least after a long lapse of time got settled and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in declining to interfere in the matter. It is the soundness of this reason which weighed very much also with us to decline to entertain this writ petition. Otherwise, it would have the effect of making the seniority position of the officers nebulous and independent for a long time, hereafter also. On this ground alone the order of the Tribunal could be sustained and held to be justified.