AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Sri T.S. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram, the Petitioner in writ petition No. 23548 of 2008, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel appearing for Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhary, Petitioner in writ petition No. 20005 and Sri K.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India in writ petition No. 21992 of 2008. Learned Counsel appears for the Respondents.
All the three writ petitions arise out of order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') dated 08.01.2008 passed in Original Application No. 327 of 2006, filed by the applicant Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram for impleading Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari as Respondent No. 4.
The Tribunal has directed a review D.P.C. to be conducted and the decision to be implemented within three months'' and arrears of pay and allowance be paid to the Respondent No. 4, in view of the order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2002 the same would be made available to the applicant as well.
Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhary submits that Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram, cannot be considered for review D.P.C. as she was not selected. She was considered as best amongst failures. She challenged the decision and lost in the Tribunal and thereafter in the High Court. It is submitted by Sri Budhwar that Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari had challenged her non consideration on he grounds that she was ineligible and had not completed five years of service. It was found that the Tribunal that the Petitioner had completed five years of service and had wrongly been excluded for consideration initially. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the objection and the review petition was allowed with the direction that the review D.P.C. be held for promotion on the post of Matron from Staff Nurse vide notification dated 11.12.1995. The writ petition filed by Union of India, against the judgment for allowing review petition was dismissed on 02.12.2004 with following directions:
The contesting Respondent has been made nursing sister w.e.f. 23.11.1995. This means that she has to be treated as nursing sister on the date of notification namely on 11.12.1995. In view of this, the Tribunal below has rightly heard the review application and has directed the department to consider the claim of the contesting Respondent. There is no illegality in the judgment. The writ petition has not merit. It is dismissed.
The review D.P.C. was held in which Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari succeeded and was thus given promotion to the Post of Matron Grade -II w.e.f. 24.07.1997, i.e. the date when persons working as Staff Nurse were found successful and were promoted to the post of Matron Grade -II, in pursuance to the review D.P.C. held in the year 1995, but without any consequential benefits.
We find that the claim of Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram came to an end after her claim petition was rejected and it was held that she was considered but not found suitable for promotion. The writ petition No. 18265 of 2002 was initially dismissed on 12.09.2005 and the recall application was also rejected on the ground that she did not have any right to be considered for promotion by the Review D.P.C. to be held in terms of Rule 203.2 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual.
Rule 203.2 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, relied upon by Sri T.S. Pandey, to establish his claim that Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram as eligible for promotion, provides:
In case a junior employee is considered for selection by virtue of his satisfying the relevant minimum service condition all person senior to him shall be held to be eligible, not with standing the position that they do not fulfill the requisite minimum service conditions.
The Rule quoted above is applicable where any junior employee is considered for selection by virtue of his/her satisfying relevant minimum service conditions. In such case all persons senior to him shall be held eligible. Even Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram was held to be eligible and was considered by the review D.P.C. She was not found successful. She cannot take benefit of rule now. The Rule only applies to make a person eligible, and not suitable for promotion.
For the aforesaid reasons we find that the directions issued by the Tribunal to hold Review D.P.C. for Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram and to consider her for promotion with effect from the date when Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhari was promoted are not justified. Her claim was considered under the rules, for promotion. She has been considered for promotion and was not found suitable and her claim was rejected up to the High Court.
The Writ Petition No. 23548 of 2008, filed by Smt. Veena Keshao Rao Meshram is dismissed and the Writ Petition No. 20005 of 2008, filed by Smt. Geeta Kumari Chaudhary and Writ Petition No. 21992 of 2008 filed by Union of India is allowed. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18.01.2008 consequently is set aside.