CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 10 CAT CK 0108

B.N.S.V.S.K. Bangarraju vs Union Of India And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 9 October 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ajay Kumar, J · A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 3056 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 374 words

V. Ajay Kumar, J

The applicant, a Superintendent (Legal) in the 1st respondent-Legislative Department of the Government of India, filed the OA seeking to declare the promotion and appointment of the private respondent No.6, Shri R.S. Jayakrishnan as regular Superintendent (Legal) from 25/09/2009 as illegal and to declare that he is senior to the said private respondent in the category of Superintendent (Legal).

2.

The Annexure A-1 Note dated 03.11.2011 whereunder the respondents circulated the Seniority List of Superintendents (Legal) as on 31.10.2011, wherein the applicant was shown as junior to all the private respondents was the cause of filing the instant OA.

3.

The applicant, who is appearing in person, while drawing our attention to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department (Group 'B' Gazetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (Annexure A-5) which governs the recruitment conditions of the post of Superintendent (Legal), submits that there are total 4 posts of Superintendent (Legal) in the 1st respondent-Legislative Department, as per the sanctioned strength and the same are to be filled up 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Against the 25% direct recruitment quota, the applicant was selected and appointed, as a direct recruit, though he was working as Assistant (Legal) in the same department at the relevant time, i.e. on 08.08.2007. The private respondents No.3 to 6 were appointed as Superintendent (Legal) against the 75% quota by way of promotion. Since the rule provides for 75% by way of promotion and 25% by way of direct recruitment, the private respondents No.3 to 5 being promotees and who were appointed as Superintendent (Legal) before the applicant, were rightly placed above the applicant. But the private respondent No.6, though there was no vacancy for promotion quota was appointed as Superintendent (Legal) on 25.09.2009 and, as per the RRs and as per the rules of seniority, i.e., 75%:25%, the applicant is entitled to be placed immediately after the 75% promotees, i.e., after the 5th respondent and above the 6th respondent. Hence, the OA.

4.

When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is admitted that the private respondent No.6 has left the service as he was appointed elsewhere.

5.

Accordingly, the OA is disposed of as no further orders are necessary. No costs.