A
PILLA SITARAM PATRUDU AND ORS.
v.
UN:iON OF INDIA AND ORS.
MARCH 25, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
SeTVice law :
Se11iority--Rai/ways-o4ssistallt Executive Engineer Selection by direct
C reciuitment i11 1977-Appoilltment givm in 1981-Appointment delayed due
to /aches on the pan of Railway Administration-:-Promotion as Executive
Enginee1-Seni01ity-Held, to be detennined as per the procedure presclibed
in the mies in vogue-Direct recniit entitled to the ranking give11 in select list.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
D
No. 8887-8888 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.95 of the Central Ad-
+
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in 0.A. Nos. 2091/93 and 317 of 1994.
Shambhu Prasad Singh, Himanshu Shekhar for the Petitioners.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
The 5th respondent, K.R. Ramanandan, was selected by direct
F
recruitment in the year 1977 for selection as Assistant Executive Engineer.
All the direct recruits except the respondent were appointed in the year
1978. It was admitted that when he had filed O.P. No. 7226/85 in the CAT,
Ernakulam Bench, by order dated 31.1.1990 it was held that his appoint-
ment was delayed due to !aches on the part of the Railway Administration.
After his appointment in the year 1981, within two years he passed his test.
G When his case was not considered for promotion as Executive Engineer,
he filed the O.A. The Tribunal without deciding the inter se seniority in
the cadre of Asst!. Executive Engineers had directed the Railway Ad-
ministration to consider his case for promotion as Executive Engineer for
the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 and if found fit for promotion in any of the
H posts, to give him promotion for that year and to flX seniority among
870
P.S. PATRUDUv. U.0.1.
871
Executive Engineers accordingly. Pursuant thereto, the respondent was A
considered and promoted as Executive Engineer. After the above order
came to be made, the Railway Administration did not carry the matter in
appeal to this Court. Some of the persons seemingly aggrieved against the
direction admittedly filed a review petition which was also dismissed arid
that order became final.The petitioners thereafter challenged the self same
B
order by filing separate O.A. and in· the impugned order of the Tribunal
dated October 19, 1995 the Tribunal has confirmed its earlier order. Thus
this Special Leave Petition.
It is contended ,by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since
the inter-se seniority as Asst!. 'Engineers was left open in the order, the C
directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer
and determine his seniority on the basis of the promotion, is not valid in
law. We find no force in the contention. Once he is found lo be eligible
accordi"ng to the rules, then his. seniority is required to be determined as
per the pro~edui-e prescribed'i~ the "rules in vogue. It is further contended
that the fifth respondent was not.qualified since he had not completed 8 D
years. qf required service. Th~. Tribun.al h~s recorded a finding that two
years period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates: The inter
se seniority as Asst!. Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he
joined service in '1981 and, therefore, he did not have the requisite service.
·We find no· force in· the contention. Since he was selected by direct E
recruitment, he is entitled to be. appointed to rule. His appointment was
delayed for no fault of him and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is,
therefore, _entitled to the .ranking given in the select list and appointment ·
made accordingly. 'Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality
in the order.
F
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed .
R.P.
. Petition dismissed.
. ..
.
'
. '
Lex