Baral Vs. Government of Orissa & Ors  INSC 237 (3 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
3RD DAY OF MARCH 3,
Mr.Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.T.Nanavati B.A.Mohanty, Sr.Adv., Ms.Kirti
Mishra, Adv. with him for the appellant A.K. Panda, P.N. Misra, Advs. for the
Respondents O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, made on February 8, 1996 in Application No.6/91.
respondents-employees were appointed to the posts of L.D.C in 1970-71. The
appellant was later appointed in 1972-73. The question of their inter se seniority
had come up before the Government. The Government in its order dated February 4, 1971 prescribed the minimum educational
qualification, viz., intermediate, for recruitment to the post of L.D.C in the
district and subordinate offices. The contesting respondents-employees are only
Matriculates while the appellant has Intermediate educational qualifications.
basis of their educational qualifications, the Government have issued
instructions for fixation of their inter se seniority as under:
All L.S. Clerks who have passed Matriculation or any equivalent examination
shall be deemed to have validly and regularly recruited and appointed as such
and they shall not be required to pass the Recruitment Examination or any
special qualifying test in lieu thereof prescribed by Government.
The seniority of the L.D. Clerks under category (a) above shall be fixed taking
into account their services from the date of appointment as L.D. Clerks but in
the gradation list of L.D. Clerks they shall rank immediately below the L.D.
Clerks recruited during the same year with the minimum educational
qualification prescribed by Government in Finance Department Resolution
No.3968F dt. 4.2.71. According to the revised gradation list to be prepared as
above, they may be confirmed against permanent posts if available, provided
they fulfil all other conditions necessary for confirmation.
of seniority of these clerks as mentioned in (b) above shall not entitle them
to any promotional benefits retrospectively.
The L.D. Clerks so regularised will be entitled to draw their pay as per the
principles laid down in Finance Department Resolution No.3968F dt. 4.2.71 read
with Finance Department Resolution No.90F. dt. 2.1.73 from the date of their
appointment to such posts." A reading of it would clearly indicate that
all L.D.Cs. who have passed Matriculation or any equivalent examination shall
be deemed to have been validly and regularly recruited to pass the Recruitment
Examination or any special qualifying test. But in the matter of preparation of
their seniority, it postulates that seniority will be given to those who have
got the minimum educational qualification. In other words, those possessed of
Intermediate qualification, will rank as senior to Matriculates. As a
consequence, the appellant, though appointed later, became senior to the
respondents. the departmental Promotion Committee Constituted for the purpose
of selection for promotion to the post of U.D.C. had considered the appellant's
claim and found him fit. It regularised his services and has given him the
promotion as he was senior to the respondents.
when the respondents' claim came up for consideration, the D.P.C. recommended
for demotion of the appellant and confirmation of the respondents, Consequently,
in the gradation list, the respondents were placed above the appellant. On
appeal, Government reversed it. As a consequence, the respondents approached
the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held thus:
who were regularised in service by Govt. order dated 21.10.81 in which all the
L.D. Clerks who had passed Matriculation or equivalent examination were deemed
to have been validly and regularly recruited and appointed as such and they
were not required to pass the recruitment examination or any special qualifying
test in lieu Thereof prescribed by Government. Opposite Parties 4 to 6 who came
to be appointed much later than the petitioners were promoted without prejudice
to the claims of their seniors (Petitioners) to the rank of U.D. Clerk in the
year 1980, 1981 to the post of U.D. Clerk. On their promotion as per the
conditions, Opposite Parties 4 to 6 were
reverted to the post of U.D. Clerk in the year 1981. From 1981 till this
litigation was filed in the year 1991 petitioners are continuing
uninterruptedly in the promotional post of U.D. Clerk and Opposite Parties 4 to
6 are continuing as L.D. Clerks. None years after in the year 1990 under the
impugned order U.D. Clerks was ordered to be set aside. Was it justified? Even
on the ground that the representation of the Opposite Parties was disposed of
in the year 1990." The appellant was regularised in service by Government
Order dated 8.10.1981. All the L.D.Cs. who had passed Matriculation or
equivalent examination were deemed to have been validly and regularly recruited
and appointed as such.
were not required to entitle to pass the Recruitment Examination or any
qualifying test in lien thereof prescribed by the Government. On that basis,
the direction was given in paragraph 13 which reads as under:
the premise for the reasons stated above and discussions made, the orders at
Annexures-9 and 10 are unsustainable and are, therefore, liable to be set
aside, which are hereby set aside.
shall continue in the promotional post without any disturbance in the seniority
list." This direction is obviously inconsistent with the orders issued by
the Government as indicated above. Since the respondent-employees did not
possess minimum educational qualification, viz., Intermediate, they are not
entitled to rank senior to the qualified appellant. Thus, the contesting
respondents 4 and 5 in this appeal shall be junior to the appellant.
their continuance in the respective posts for promotion may not be disturbed
since all the parties have been further promoted in which posts their inter se
seniority would be the appellant is senior to them for further promotions.
appeal is accordingly allowed. But in the circumstances without costs.
Pages: 1 2