LexM.K. SHANMUGAM AND ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.K. SHANMUGAM AND ANR. ETC. "';( v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 25, 2000 .. B [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, S. RAJENDRA BABU AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] ~ Service Law : c Seni01ity-Dete1mination of-Ad-hoc pmmotions-Regularised subse- quently-Held does not count for senio1ity in all cases-It counts only where ad-hoc pmmotion is made by the same pmcess which is applicable to regular appointment and is not a stop gap arrangement-Posts & Telegraphs Civil Engineering (Electrical Gazetted Officers) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, _.._ 1984. D Appellants, Assistant Engineers (Electrical) Class II were promoted on ad-hoc basis as Executive Engineers (Electrical which were subsequently regularised. The said ad-hoc promotions were taken into consideration by the Department while preparing the seniority list. Respondents, dil_'.ectly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) Class I challenged the ~ E said seniority list before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Molding that the ad-hoc promotion~ made purely as a stop gap arrangements cannot be counted towards seniority, the Tribunal allowed the applications. Hence the present appeals. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court ~ Held : 1.1. Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellants were not entitled to count their ad-hoc service in the post of Executive Engineers (Electrical) for the purpose of seniority. [ 557 -F] G 1.2. Ad-hoc promotions regularised subsequently does not count for seniority in all cases. It is only in those cases where initial appointment though ad-hoc were made by the same process as applicable to regular _. _, appointment and the same was not a stop gap arrangement. However, in ' the instant case, the ad-hoc promotions were made only as a stop gap arrangement in administrative exigencies, without consideration by the H Departmental Promotion Committee. [557-D] 554 - M.K. SHANMUGAM 1i U.O.I. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 555 Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association, [1990] 2SCC A 715; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aghore Nath Day & Ors., [1993] 3 SCC 371; Dr. Anuradha Bodi & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 293; Keslzav Dea & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1999) 1 SCC 280; Major Yogendra Narain Yadav & 01:~. v. Bindeshwar Prasad & Or.~., [1997] 2 SCC 150; I.K. Suklzija & Or.~. v. Union of India & Ors., [1997] 6 SCC 406; Govemment of A.P. & Am: v. Y. Sagareshivara Rao, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 16, relied on. B 2. However, it is made clear that while amending the Posts & Tel- egraphs Engineering (Electrical Gazetted Officers) Recruitment (Amend- ment) Rules, 1984, all those who are already in service will be borne in mind C in adjusting seniority amongst the promotees inter se and suitable adjust- ments could be made and so far as the direct recruits are concerned, their cases will go by their quota rule and the view taken by the Tribunal in this .A- regard cannot be taken exception of. [562-EJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 1994 D Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.93 of the Central Administra- tive Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 286 of 1992. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, V.C. Mahajan, P.P. Rao, Shankar Ghosh, Anoop Choudhary, P.S. Misra, S. Sivasubramanium, Raj Kumar Gupta, Hemant Sharma, Anil Katiyar, Arvind Sharma, B.K. Prasad, Himanshu Shekhar, S.K. Verma, S. Chandrashekhar, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, C. V. Subba Rao, Prag Tripathi, K.K. Mani, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik and Naresh Kaushik for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeal No. 5086 of 1994. E F This appeal is directed against the order made by the Central Admin- G istrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] on November 5, 1993 in 0.A. No. 286/92. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application 0.A. No. 286/92 before the Tribunal. The pleadings raised in the application, briefly stated, are as under. The respondents were directly recruited through the Union Public H A B c 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R. Service Commission as Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) Class I in the Ministry of Communications, while respondents Nos. 3 to 5 before the Tribunal were recruited as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) Class II and both the applicants and the other respondents were subsequently promoted on ad hoc basis and t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.