9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in Original Application No.380 of 1987 as well as the order dismissing a review application filed by the appellants. The dispute is between direct recruits and promotees and it relates to determination of the seniority as between them in the post of Chargeman Grade-1 in the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production. Recruitment to the post of Chargeman Grade-1 was both by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. Until 1979, the ratio between promotees and direct recruits was 2/3 : 1/3. From March 3, 1979, it was changed to 80 : 20 and with effect from June 26, 1985 the channel of direct recruitment has been closed altogether; the only method of recruitment is prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man earlier than the first respondent. Thereupon, the first respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) by way of Original Application No.731 of 1986 praying for a declaration that the seniority lists issued in the years 1982, 1983 and 1985 in respect of Chargeman Grade-I be declared to be illegal and invalid and a further direction to promote him (petitioner in the said Original Application) to the post of Assistant Foreman with effect from July 9, 1984, the date which the second respondent was promoted to that post. His submission was that inasmuch as there was a break-down of the quota rule during the relevant years, the rule of rotation cannot be followed and hence the direct recruits appointed later cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir O.M. dated 7-2-1986. Even though that O.M. would have effect only prospectively, the principle laid down therein is a principle of law which has to be applied in cases like this where seniority is challenged on the ground that constitutional provisions have been violated because of the application of rota rule when quota rule has already broken. In view of the said concession - (the judgment of the Tribunal does not show whether any counter was filed by the Union of India, and if so, what was its purport) - the Tribunal directed that the petitioner before it is entitled to be treated as senior to the respondents- direct recruits therein and that he is also entitled to be considered for promotion as Assistant Foreman when the third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected the promotees' case that there has been a break-down of the quota rule. The claim of the promotees for seniority was accordingly rejected. The Tribunal also rejected the promotees' challenge to the Office Memorandum dated February 7, 1986 insofar as it stated that the principle evolved therein shall have only prospective operation and that seniority already determined in accordance with the existing principles on the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum will not be re-opened. The decision of the Bangalore Tribunal was rendered on October 20, 1987. When the petitioners before the Bangalore Bench came to know of the decision of the Madras Tribunal (which was rendered on October 30, 1987), they applied to the Bangalo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) S.C.C. 715) should be followed. The learned counsel further submitted that following the rule of rotation despite the bread-down of the quota rule results in grave discrimination and arbitrariness and that the said fact was recognised by the Government itself which has accordingly issued a fresh set of instructions in its Office Memorandum dated February 7, 1986. Counsel submitted that the principles contained in the said Office Memorandum, being equitable and just, should be applied even for the period anterior to February 7, 1986 in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay. He submitted that the Central Government was not justified in saying that the principles in the said Office Memorandum shall only have prospective operation whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en down or with the question whether the principle contained in Office Memorandum dated February 77, 1986 can be given retrospective effect. The factual situation concludes the issue against the promotees. For the above reasons, Civil Appeal No.4340 of 1995 is allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 9831 of 1995 arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No.3930 of 1988 is dismissed. The promotees' challenge to the seniority lists prepared in the years 1982, 1983 and 1985 fails as also their challenge to the promotion of direct recruits to the post of Assistant Foreman earlier than the petitioners in Original Application No.380 of 1987 on the file of Bangalore Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Indian Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
