AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
The BSNL is before us. Respondents, who are applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, were working in different wings, other than the Kerala Circle, in the category of Junior Telecom Officers. They got inter-circle transfer and came over to the Kerala Circle. They were governed by Rule 38 of the P & T Manual Volume IV. It reads as follows:
When an official is transferred at his own request but without arranging for mutual exchange, he will rank junior in the gradation list of the new unit to all officials of that Unit on the date on which the transfer order, issued, including also all persons who have been approved for appointment to that grade as on that date.
It appears that the claims of persons who came on inter- circle transfer vis.a.vis. the persons who initially entered service in the Kerala circle had been subject matter of consideration even earlier. That had also led to the judgment in O.P.Nos.29044/00 and 30644/00, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 5.12.2001. It was categorically found therein that there is irregularity in giving promotions on an adhoc basis on the basis of the circle seniority while regular promotions can be made only on the basis of all India seniority based on the date of entry into the service of BSNL. Even for circle promotions that was being adhered to provided if it is in the same cadre. The Bench had, in the judgment dated 5.12.2001, criticized that there is no justification in allowing persons who officiate in higher posts by defeating the claim of persons who aspire for regular promotion to that cadre. This obviously means that adhoc or officiating promotions which are effected to tide over emergent situation ought to be minimal and that procedure has to be adopted only where exigencies of circumstance in the establishment need such promotions. However, as rightly opined in the judgment in O.P.Nos.29044/00 and 30644/00, that cannot be a mode for all times to come, depriving those aspiring to occupy higher posts on regular basis of their legitimate entitlement. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in that judgment.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, while we do not find any illegality in the findings of the learned Tribunal in Ext.P1, the order impugned before us in this original petition, all that needs to be clarified is that the establishment shall take immediate action to ensure that there is no appreciable time lag in the matter of making promotions on regular basis as against vacancies. If admittedly promotions are made on regular basis, that will obviously take away the complaint on promotions on local officiating basis. While we say that the establishment may be justified in saying that delay in administration may lead to some overall delay in the matter of regular promotion, we do not see any reason why that is reduced and promotions are made having due regard to the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment O.P.Nos.29044/00 and 30644/00, dated 5.12.2001. Further, we may indicate that if there is an integrated list that has to be operated upon, refusal to do so would even result in consequences which may indicate violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order Ext.P1 of the Tribunal is clarified as above and this matter is ordered accordingly.