Union of India Vs. Smt. Sadhana Khanna [2007] Insc 1311 (14 December 2007)
A.K.
Mathur & Markandey Katju Markandey Katju, J.
1.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High
Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No.1311 of 2000.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The
facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central Secretariat
Service on 13.7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade Examination held in
October, 1981. The respondent was allocated to the finance cadre comprising the
Ministry of Finance.
4.
After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of Assistant,
the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of Section
Officer on 24.7.1991. The respondent continues to work in this post till date.
5.
Select List (Seniority quota) for promotion to the Section Officers Grade for
the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993.
The respondents name has not been included in this select list although
the respondent was qualified to be included in the select list. Officers junior
to the respondent who have secured lower rank in the Assistant Grade
Examination 1981 have been included in the select list for Section Officers
1991.
6. The
seniority list of Assistants Grade had been issued on 1st October, 1990. In this list the respondent ranks
at S.N.29 whereas other officers of the same grade at S.Nos.30, 32, 34, 25 and
so on who are junior to the respondent in this seniority list have superseded
the respondent and promoted as Section Officer on the basis of the Select List
of 1991.
Promotion
to the post of section officers from the grade of Assistant to the grade of
Section Officers (seniority quota) is on non-selection basis, based only on
seniority.
7. The
grievance of the respondent was that her juniors were included in the select
list but her name was not so included. Hence, she filed an O.A. before the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
8. In
the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein
(respondent before the Tribunal) alleged that the respondent was not eligible
for inclusion in the Select List of 1991, since on 1.7.1991 she was short of
the minimum eligibility service requirement of eight years by twelve days.
The
respondent joined as Assistant on 13.7.1983 and as such she could not be placed
on the select list.
9. The
Tribunal allowed the O.A. by its order dated 24.9.1999. In the said O.A. it was
hold that the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an Office
Memorandum dated 19.7.1989 soon after the decision of this Court in R. Prabha Devi
and others vs. Government of IndiaThrough Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and
Training, Administrative Reforms and others 1988(2) SCC 233 stating that where
the junior had completed the eligibility requirement of promotion then their
seniors will also be considered even if they have not completed the eligibility
period.
10.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which was
dismissed and hence this appeal.
11. It
may be noted that the respondent was offered appointment vide letter dated
5.7.1983 which is after 1.7.1983 from which the eligibility was to be counted.
Hence, it is the Department which is to blame for sending the letter offering
appointment after 1.7.1983. In fact, some of the candidates who were junior to
the respondent were issued letters offering appointment prior to 1.7.1983.
Hence it was the Department which is to blame for this.
Moreover,
in view of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training
dated 18.3.1988 and 19.7.1989 the respondent was also to be considered,
otherwise a very incongruous situation would arise namely that the junior will
be considered for promotion but the senior will not.
12. In
view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
