Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., KARDAK ETE, J.
Prabhat Chandra Das, S/o. Late Puspa Ram Das & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by the Chairman Cum Managing Director & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6967 of 2018
Decided On : 20-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. S. Nath.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Pathak.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Court reaffirmed that prior judicial decisions regarding promotions are binding, and claims for absorption must align with established legal standards.

Headnote:
Promotion - Telecom Officers - Central Administrative Tribunal - The Court discussed the legal provisions regarding promotions and relaxations in qualifying standards, emphasizing the finality of previous Court decisions and the lack of merit in the petitioners' claims for absorption as Junior Telecom Officers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, initially appointed as Telecom Operating Assistants, were promoted to Junior Telecom Officers but faced challenges to their promotion. After a series of legal proceedings, their claims for absorption were rejected by BSNL, leading to the current writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the petitioners' promotion had been previously deemed invalid and that their claims for absorption were not supported by the law or the facts of the case.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to be absorbed as Junior Telecom Officers despite previous Court rulings against their promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' promotion had been invalidated by earlier judgments, and their subsequent claims for absorption were not legally justified.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, (hereinafter to the referred as the “Tribunal”) in Original Application No.328/2015, whereby the Original Application filed on behalf of the petitioners and some other similarly situated persons, has been dismissed. However, the Tribunal has observed that it is open for the official respondents to consider accommodating the petitioners against the vacant posts of Junior Telecom Officer (JTOs), if any, in the Assam Telecom Service Circle, in view of the fact that they have already served as JTOs for over nine years.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Telecom Operating Assistant (in short, “TOA”) during the year 1982 to 1993 in the Department of Telecom. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Telecom Operating Assistant (in short, “Sr.TOA”).

Pursuant to the selections took place in the year 2003, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (in short, “JTO”) while granting relaxation against the carry forward vacancies of the year 1999 under 15% quota earmarked for the Departmental/in-service candidates. As per the petitioners, they have undergone Pre-Basic Training for 4(four) weeks, Phase-I training for 16 (sixteen) weeks and Field Training for 4(four) weeks which were followed by Phase-II Training on specialization for a period of 14 (fourteen) weeks and after completion of the said Training, the petitioners along with some other persons were appointed on the post of JTO at different places within the Assam Telecom Circle Vide orders dated 01.06.2024, 04.06.2024 and 07.07.2024, respectively.

3. It appears that being aggrieved with the promotion of the petitioners, some employees working as Telecom Operating Assistant (TOA) have challenged their promotion and other similarly situated persons by filing writ petition, being WP(C) No. 7423/2003, 7222/2003 and 8583/2003 before this Court. It is to be noticed that in WP(C) No.7423/2003, the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were also impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 to 26. However, despite service of notice of the writ petition, the petitioners have not appeared and have not contested the writ petition.

It is also to be noticed that the TOA’s, who have filed the above referred writ petitions are the candidates who have participated in the process took place in the year 1999 for promotion to the post of JTO but could not be selected. They raised as grievance before the Writ Court that though the petitioners were granted relaxation as per the office circular dated 10.03.2003 but relaxation was not granted to them despite the fact that they are also entitled for relaxation as provided in the said office circular.

The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.05.2007, has disposed of the writ petitions filed by those persons, and issued a direction to the respondent authorities to apply the relaxed standards prescribed by the office Circular dated 10.03.2003, i.e. 30% uniform marks for both categories of candidates to the examination of the year 1999 and on that basis to determine the entitlement of the persons who would be eligible for promotion to the vacancies that existed at that point of time, which are stated to be 23 in number.

The learned Single Judge has further ordered that, if any of the respondent Nos.4 to 26, including the petitioners, are not found to be entitled for their promotional posts, orders will be passed by the respondents to the above effect.

4. It is to be noticed that the judgment dated 15.05.2007 has not been challenged by the petitioners or other similarly situated persons. However, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short, “BSNL”) which was constituted in the year 2000, has challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge by way