AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge made in the writ petition is to the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A.
No.259/2013 whereby direction was made to the petitioner to antedate the promotion of the respondent Shri Deshbandhu Choudhury in the post
of Head Clerk in All India Radio with effect from 02.05.2008.
We have heard Mr. Y. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J.L. Sarkar, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
The career progression of the respondent commenced with his appointment as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with effect from 26.08.1985 in All
India Radio, Guwahati. His promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) was given effect from 01.12.1990. For his next promotion to
the post of Head Clerk, he had appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in the year 2006 for the vacancy years of
1999-2000, 2001- 2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, which selection was subsequently cancelled by the Department. In the next LDCE held in
the year 2011 for vacancies for the years 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and also for the vacancies in respect of 2007-2008
and 2008-2009, the respondent appeared and qualified. Accordingly, promotion order was issued and the respondent joined as Head Clerk on
14.12.2011. According to the respondent, persons similarly situated who had appeared in the LDCE held in 2006 as well as in 2011 were given
the benefit of antedated promotion from the year 2006. It was only in the case of the respondent that such benefit was denied. Grievance was
raised that in the event his promotion to the post of Head Clerk is not antedated, he will be deprived of the benefit of the third financial upgradation
under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) which was due in 2015. To this effect he had made representations which, however, did
not evoke any response. Constrained thus, he approached the Tribunal.
At the very outset we place on record that for the clear stand taken by the petitioner, as highlighted in its written statement filed before the
Tribunal as well as in the present writ petition, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In fact, we find that the present
writ petition was not filed bona fide. At paragraph 6 of the written statement dated 30.05.2014 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal it is
stated that in the competitive examination held in the year 2011, the respondent could not secure the minimum marks to qualify for the vacancies of
the recruitment years 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. However, he had secured the qualifying marks for one unreserved
vacancy for the recruitment year 2007-2008, but could not be given appointment as he was placed in the third position of the merit list. He was
given appointment against the unreserved vacancies when he could secure second position in the merit list for the year 2008-2009. Similar stand
has been taken at paragraph 7 in the present writ petition.
The above being the undisputed factual position and the pleaded stand of the petitioner, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in
directing antedating of the promotion of the respondent with effect from 02.05.2008, which is the date when the second vacancy for the
recruitment year 2008-2009 occurred due to retirement of one Shri M.C. Medhi.
We according dismiss this writ petition without any cost by affirming the findings and directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati
Bench.