Sanjay Mittal vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as Assistant Marketing Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture through an order dated 10.12.1985 on being selected by the UPSC. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, though was selected earlier to that very post, for an earlier batch was appointed on 18.06.1986, but was placed above the applicant, in the seniority list, said to have been published for the first time in the year 2003. The applicant made a representation, stating that he deserves to be declared as senior to the 3rd respondent on account of his joining the duty almost one year earlier. Through an order dated 31.10.2011, the 1st respondent declared the applicant as senior to the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by that, the 3rd respondent filed OA No. 199/2012 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal, the OA was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2016. The applicant filed Writ Petition No. 16506/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the 1st respondent implemented the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 199/2012 by issuing an order dated 06.06.2016. The Hon'ble High Court took the view that the Tribunal did not have an occasion to examine the order dated 06.06.2016 and it was left open to the applicant to file the OA. This OA is filed, challenging the order dated 06.06.2016.

We heard Shri Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Kumar Onkareshwar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant, on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other hand, were appointed to the same post through the process of selection, by the UPSC. The undisputed fact is that the 3rd respondent was selected with reference to an earlier batch, whereas the applicant was selected with reference to the subsequent batch. For some reason or the other, the 3rd respondent joined the post almost one year after the applicant joined.

Taking into account, the fact that the 3rd respondent is an officer of an earlier batch, he was placed above the applicant in the seniority list. However, on a representation made by the applicant, an order dated 31.10.2011 was issued which reads as under:-

"With the approval of the competent authority vide "DAC's letter no.11013/3/2005-M.I. dated 11.10.2011, the seniority in cadre of the Assistant Marketing Development Officer in respect of Shri B. Chandramuli and Sanjay Mittal has been revised. Now Shri Sanajy Mittal will be senior to Shri B. Chandramouli."

No reason whatever was mentioned in the said order for changing the seniority. The 3rd respondent filed OA No. 199/2012, challenging the same. The applicant was impleaded in that OA as respondent no.3, but he did not choose to contest the OA and remained ex parte. The Tribunal took into account, the various legal and factual contentions and has set aside the order dated 31.10.2011, through its order dated 22.02.2016. In the Writ Petition filed by the applicant, it was mentioned that the order passed in the OA was implemented vide order dated 06.06.2016.  The Hon'ble High Court, however, took the view that the Tribunal, when it decided the OA No. 199/2012, did not have the occasion to examine the legality of the order dated 06.06.2016.  The relevant sentence reads as under:-

"......Needless to mention, the Tribunal had no occasion to examine the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 6.6.2016 and, therefore, we are not inclined to examine the validity of said order as a Court of first instance."

It appears that one significant fact alluded the attention of the Lordship, that when the OA was decided on 22.02.2016, the question of the order dated 06.06.2016 being considered, does not arise and that the said order is nothing, but a measure of implementation of the direction issued in the OA.

Be that as it may, the challenge in this OA is to the order of the implementation of the directions contained in the OA No. 199/2012. Unless the very basis is removed, we cannot interfere with the same.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.