Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2160
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, A, HON’BLE MR RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, J
Alok Kumar And Ors – Appellant
Versus
Posts – Respondent
O.A./359/2022
Shri J.K. Karn, Advocate For Respondents:- Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. CGSC
Seniors must be considered for promotion alongside juniors who meet eligibility criteria, as per DoPT guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Guidelines - Circular No. AB-14017/48/2010-Estt. (RR) dated 31.12.2010 - Promotion eligibility criteria - Applicants, direct recruits as Inspectors of Posts, challenged their exclusion from LDCE for promotion to PS Group 'B' cadre for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17. The respondents failed to consider their eligibility despite their juniors being promoted, resulting in loss of seniority. (Paras 1-4, 39)
(B) Seniority - The court emphasized that seniority is maintained on an all-India basis, not circle-wise, and applicants should be considered for promotion alongside their juniors who completed qualifying service. (Paras 29-40)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, having completed the required service, were denied eligibility for promotion against the vacancy years 2012-13 to 2016-17, while their juniors were promoted.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside, directing the respondents to consider the applicants for all vacancies from 2012-13 to 2016-17 and refix their seniority.
Issues: The main issues included the eligibility of the applicants for promotion and the arbitrary treatment compared to their juniors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicants were entitled to consideration for promotion based on their seniority and the DoPT guidelines, which allow seniors to be considered when juniors are promoted.
Result: OA is allowed with directions to comply within 90 days.
ORDER
PER:-RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER [J]
1. The applicants filed the OA for following relief: -
“(i) Set aside the Order contained dated 17.08.2020 contained in F. No. A-34018/02/2020-DE issued under the signature of Respondent No.3, by which the Respondent No. 3 disposed of the Representations of the Applicants and has not treated the Applicants eligible against the LDCE for promotion to PS Group "B" cadre for the year 2012-13 to 2016-17, conducted pursuant to the Notification No. A 34012/08/2016 dated 07.10.2016.
(ii) Direct the Respondents to treat the Applicants eligible / pass outs against all the vacancy year 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the aforesaid LDCE and accordingly refix the seniority of the Applicants in the PS Group "B" cadre and also to grant all the consequential benefits to the Applicants, which they will be entitle to upon refixation of their seniority in the said cadre.
(iii) Pass any order or direction, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To avoid cost of this application to the Applicants.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants are direct recruit on the post of Inspector of Post. Pursuant to the selection of the applicants they joined on their respected post and while they were discharging their duty, Respondent No.3 issued notification on 07.10.2016 for conducting L.D.C.E. for promotion on post of postal superintendent Group B post for the vacancy year 2012-13 to 2016-17.
3. That the advertisement for the said examination contemplated the minimal eligibility of 5 years regular service from joining the IP cadre. Since the 5 years of regular service of the Applicants got completed in the year 2013-14 as such they became eligible against the vacancy year 2013-14. However, the conditions stipulated in DOPT memo dated: 31.12.2010, were also made applicable against the said advertisement, which prescribe that if juniors have completed the qualifying service for promotion in a particular vacancy year then their seniors will also be considered against the said vacancy year itself provided that the requisite qualifying service is more than half of the service or of minimum 2 years.
4. That three Inspectors of Posts namely TapaswiDarshanHargovind, J.C. George and Sh. Parveenwho were juniors to the Applicants against the vacancy year 2012-13 onwards. Hence, in terms of the aforesaid memo of the DOPT the applicants ought to have been declared against the said vacancy year, but the authorities did not consider the candidature of the Applicants against the said vacancy year and thus their results were declared against the vacancy year 2013-14 onwards as a result of which the Applicants have lost 1 year of seniority in the PS Group B cadre and Sh. Parveen as well as J.C. George who were junior to the Applicants were made senior to them.
5. That the applicants submitted representation to the competent authority however, no decision was taken on their representation as such the Applicants moved before the Hon'ble Allahabad by filing O.A. No. 1108/2019 which was disposed of by order dated: 11.11.2019 with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representations.
6. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dt. 17.08.2020 disposed of the representation of the Applicants, in which Respondent No.3 has recorded that the all India Seniority list of Inspector of Post 2004-05 has not been finalised and is subject matter of outcome of different cases pending before different Hon'ble CAT as such the competent authority has taken a view to maintain status quo till the final order is passed in the cases. The stand of the respondent No.3 is self contradictory as in the impugned order the Respondent no.3 has admitted the position that Ms. Jissy George and Sh. Parveen were given the benefit of circular dated: 31.12.2010 as their immediate has become eligible against the vacancy year 2012-13, however a contradictory view is being taken in case of the Applicant
