Aggarwal Vs. U.P.S.C. & Ors  INSC 158 (20 April 1999)
S.Rajendra Babu, S.N. Phukan. S.N. Phukan, J
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th December, 1994 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,New Delhi in O.A. No. 1036 of 1990.
the purpose, of appreciating the points urged in this appeal we may briefly
state the facts.
appellant herein was appointed as Mechanical Operator on 19.03.1965 by the
respondents and from "the impugned judgment we rind that her appointment
was on probation for a period of two years and further this period was neither
extended nor her appointment was confirmed.
she was declared quasi permanent w.e.f 19.03.19GS.
30.05.78 she submitted a letter of resignation on the ground of alleged
harassment but on. the next day i.e. 31.05.7.8
she submitted another letter for withdrawal of the resignation. However, the
respondents accepted her resignation and informed her accordingly.
being dissatisfied the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Delhi which was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal
allowed her petition and directed the respondents to allow her to rejoin her
service with all consequential benefits and accordingly on 16.05.86 she
rejoined her post.
basis of Review Departmental Promotion Committee held on June, 1979 her
appointment was made substantive as Mechanical Operator w.e.f.01.07.75 and in
the seniority list she was placed senior to Kum.Indra Devi.Thereafter) she was
appointed to officiate as Technical Assistant (Hollarith) which is higher post w.e.f.
29.04.83 from the date her junior was made senior in the post. From 03.03.86 to
31.07.86 she was given the benefit of adhoc appointment and her seniority was
also determined above the said Kum. Indra Devi w.e.f. 29.4.83. The appellant
allegation before the Tribunal was that she was appointed along with Smt. Versha
Malhotra, Shri P.S, Jain and Smt. Malti Duggal, therefore, she should be
confirmed as Mechanical Operator w.w.f. the date her above named batchmate were
confirmed Instead of confirming her from 01.07.75. She grayed before the
Tribunal that the other dated 12.12.88 confirming her in the post from 01.07.75
be quashed and declaring her entitled to be confirmed as Mechanical Operator w.e.f.
the date from which her immediate junior had been confirmed with all
respondents opposed the application before the Tribunal and stated that
mechanical Operators were confirmed in the grade on the recommendation of the
Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1974 and 1977. After the resignation
and relieving of the appellant, 2 Departmental Promotion Committees were held
for substantive appointment to the grade of Mechanical Operator and on the
basis of the assessment of the record of appellant she was not found fit for
substantive appointment, Another Departmental Promotion Committee which was
held in December, 1977 the case of the appellant could not be considered as she
was not in service and, therefore, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee
was held in November, 1988 but she was found unfit. In June, 1979 the appellant
was given substantive appointment as Mechanical Operator and she was placed
above Kum. Indra Devi who was appointed substantively to the post of Mechanical
Operator w.e.f. 01.07,75 on the basis of the recommendation of-the next
Departmental Promotion Committee.
tribunal took note of the fact that as the appellant was only a temporary
employee as Mechanical Operator and her performance was not satisfactory,
therefore, rightly stated that she should not be confirmed.
tribunal also noted adverse remarks made in the annual confidential reports and
the disciplinary action and punishment imposed on the appellant. Taking into
consideration all the facts the application filed by the appellant was
dismissed, We have heard learned counsel Shri K.V, Rohtagi for the appellant
and Shri Rajiv Nanda for the respondent, The appellant as stated above joined
on the post of Mechanical Operator on 19.03.65 and she was declared quasi
permanent w.e.f 19.04.68. ForÔ promotion to the post of Technical Assistant (Holl)
as per the recruitment rules, 75% of the posts to be filled up by promotion on
the basis of seniority cum fitness and 25% on the basis of departmental test. As
the appellant was appointed and Mechanical Operator she would come under the
category of 75% for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post.
year 1974, a disciplinary proceeding was started under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 against the appellant for disobedience of orders of her superior
officers and having acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. She
was found guilty and penalty of withholding of one increment was imposed. In
the year 1975 another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
appellant and in 1976 against she was warned as a result of the disciplinary
proceedings. In December, 1976 as a result of disciplinary punishment of
withholding of one increment vas imposed on the appellant. In 1978 again a
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant.
remarks for the period ending 31 12.196 were conveyed to her that her work and behaviour
was not found satisfactory In 1969 she was warned that she had to improve her
attendance and work. In 1976 adverse remarks, for the year 1975 that she was
extremely indisciplined and insubordinate to all her superiors, were
communicated to her. Her work was also very poor due to her carelessness.
it appears apart from the adverse remarks recorded in , the years 1965,1968 and
1975 in her annual confidential reports, punishments were also awarded after
drawing the proceedings in the year 1974, 1^76 and 1977.
view of the above remarks in her annual confidential reports and punishments
imposed as a result of the proceedings the tribunal refused to interfere in the
matter. We hold that action of the tribunal cannot be faulted.
tribunal had recorded after looking into the relevant file of the appellant
that her appointment was on probation for a period of 2 years and it was purely
temporary. The tribunal also noted that she made quasi permanent after 3 years
and held that merely she was declared quasi permanent will not ipso facto make
her appointment to substantive post. We quote below this finding of the
there is nothing on record that the probation period at any time extended yet
there is no document available which goes to show that she has successfully
completed the period of probation." As stated above though the appellant
was appointed in the year 1965 and made quasi permanent in the year 1968 but
the respondents neither extended the period of probation nor terminated her
services. Adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant regarding her
unsatisfactory work and behaviour and also in the year 1969 adverse remarks for
the year ending 31 12.1968 were communicated and she was asked to improve her
attendance. Nothing was recorded in her annual confidential reports from 1968
to 1976. The first departmental proceeding was started in the year 1974, Under
normal circumstances, the case of the appellant for making permanent should
have been considered at the end of 2 years of probation or if work was not
satisfactory probation should have been extended.
there are no rules of Mechanical Operators, For no fault of appellant her case
was not considered for the above period and for the first time it was
considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1974 and again
after she was reappointed as per the direction of the tribunal.
are, therefore, of the opinion that the case of the appellant should have been
considered immediately after completion of period of probation and as it was
not done the appellant is entitled to some relief. We are of the view that in
the grade of Mechanical Operator her seniority shall be restored to below the
persons who were immediate senior to the appellant and direct accordingly.
promotion of the appellant to the next higher post the impugned order cannot be
faulted in view of the various adverse remarks recorded against the appellant
and the punishments imposed as a result of the departmental proceedings.
Therefore, her seniority "bo the post of Technical Assistant shall be as
fixed by the respondent which is held to be valid by the tribunal. We make it
very clear that in view of the directions regarding fixation of seniority of
the appellant to "the grade of Mechanical Operator she shall be entitled
to all the consequential benefits in that grade but shall not be entitled in
claim any benefit to the next higher post namely Technical Assistant, In the
result the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the tribunal stands
modified in terms of the above order. The parties bear their own costs.