AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The first Respondent herein filed O.P. No. 38301/2002 mainly praying for a direction to require the Appellants herein to promote her to the post of Assistant with effect from 13th November, 1997. By judgment rendered on 3rd April, 2009, finding that by Ext.P16 minutes of the Appellants themselves, the first Respondent was decided to be promoted with effect from 13.11.1997, learned Single Judge of this Court directed that such promotion shall be with effect from that date. Consequential benefits were also ordered to be disbursed. It is aggrieved by the said judgment the Appellants have come up in appeal.
The only ground on which the said judgment of the learned single Judge is called in question is that two other employees senior to the first Respondent were in service and that the leaned single Judge ordered that the promotion of the first Respondent shall be with effect from 13.11.1997, without taking note of the said fact. However, what we notice is that Ext.P16 decision was taken on the basis of Ext.P34 minutes, which itself show that, even according to the Appellants, the first Respondent, the Petitioner in the writ petition, was the senior most employee belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, and working as Senior Clerk as on 13.11.1997, the date of occurrence of vacancy. That apart, in the counter affidavit filed in the Original Petition also Appellants had no case that there was anybody body senior to the first Respondent in service. On the other hand, in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that ''''it is true that the Petitioner is the senior most Senior Clerk in the SC category."
Thus even according to the Appellants it was the admitted case that the first Respondent was the senior most Senior Clerk, in the SC category. It was also the admitted case that the vacancy at the 7th post of the roster operated by the Appellants, which is a post reserved for SC category, arose on 13.11.1997. If that be so, in the light of Ext.P16 decision of the Appellants, the first Respondent was entitled to have been promoted as Assistant.
We see absolutely no error in the judgment warranting interference in this writ appeal. Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed.