Union of India and Another vs Mahaveer Prasad Meena and Others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Indore (for short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 521/1999 (Annexure P/1). The grievance of the respondents before the Tribunal was in regard to the orders dated 30.08.1999, 25.08.1999 and 17.01.1997, by which the respondents were treated as promoted on ad-hoc basis.

The Tribunal, after exhaustively dealing with the matter, allowed the OA by modifying the order dated 17.01.1997 to the extent that the ''ad-hoc'' word shall stand deleted by directing the petitioners herein to treat the respondents (applicants in OA before the Tribunal) and to treat them to be holding the post of Clerks in the scale of Rs. 950-1500/3050-4950/- on substantive basis from the date they were promoted on ad-hoc basis. The Tribunal also directed for grant of consequential benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

It is not in dispute that the respondents were promoted on regular basis on the post of Clerks, after due process of selection. The pay scale of which was down graded, which was subsequently restored in the year 1999. On restoration, the petitioners organized selection and called applications from the eligible Clerks, who are working on the down graded post in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200/-. In that selection, all the applicants except respondent No. 17 participated. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that since they were posted against the post of Clerk after due selection, which was earlier down graded and subsequently restored, in their promotion order, there should not have been any mention of word ''ad-hoc''.

The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the parties, allowed the OA by observing thus:-

From the facts stated above, the only question which boils down for adjudication by this Tribunal is as to whether once the applicants have faced the selection and promoted to the post of clerk in the scale of Rs. 825-1200/- which was admittedly down graded earlier, would be required to appear again for the selection test for the actual post of clerk in the scale of Rs. 950-1500/- on restoration of the grade. We first want to make it clear that as per Para 2 of the reply, it has been clearly mentioned that certain applicants appeared and failed and have not been selected for the post of clerk in view of Annexure A-1 which was restored to the scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. It is evident that all the applicants on the post of clerk in the down graded scale of Rs. 825-1200/- have faced the selection for the post of clerk while the posts was in down grade state. We were also informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the post had to be down graded earlier since the eligible candidates were not available. However, it was frankly admitted that all these applicants have earlier passed selection test for the post of clerk. If that be so, at least the post is same and the only change was that earlier it was down graded and now it''s restored. We have not been shown any law that for the same post two selection tests can be held. Once the applicants have already passed the selection for the same post may be in its down graded state by no stretch of imagination there could be any possible justification for passing the same selection again when the post of clerk is brought to its original grade. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that there was no need for conducting the second selection for the same post.

In the premises, the OA has ample force and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annexure A-2 is modified to the extent that the ad-hoc word wherever it appears shall stands as deleted and the respondents are directed to treat all the applicants as holding the post of clerk in the scale of Rs. 950-1500/3050-4950/- on substantive basis from the date they have promoted on ad hoc basis and shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. This order shall be complied with in a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the same.

Having considered the aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the OA, noticing the fact that the respondents had earlier passed selection test for the post of Clerk and when the post is the same and only change was that earlier it was down graded and now it is restored, there was no necessity for conducting fresh selection test, as the respondents had already passed the selection for the same post, may be in the down graded state. Having regard to the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out. The order of the Tribunal suffers from no infirmity.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.