AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.—We heard learned Counsel for the Union of India. We did not have the advantage of arguments of the respondent as none is present for him.
As per the impugned order the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed a seniority list prepared for the post of UDC dated 9.1.1987 and the appellant was directed to prepare a fresh list on the basis of the initial date of promotion dehors the date of confirmation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has lost sight of the relevant rules for promotion. The rules have been produced as Annexure 'C' in this appeal under the title "Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department- Officer of the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs- Subject: General Principles for determining seniority of various categories of persons employed in Central Services dated 31.1.1961". The rule relating to promotion is provided as Rule 5. Sub-rule (i) is relevant in this context. It is extracted thus:
Promotees. -(i) The relative seniority of persons promoted to the various grades shall be determined in the order of their selection for such promotion:
Provided that where persons promoted initially on a temporary basis are confirmed subsequently in an order different from the order of merit indicated at the time of their promotion, seniority shall follow the order of confirmation and not the original order of merit.
It is very apparent that the Tribunal has not adverted to the effect of the sub rule and the implications thereon while considering as to whether the crucial date is the date of promotion or confirmation. A decision can be made solely on the true interpretation of the relevant rule and that is not done by the Tribunal in this case.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the Tribunal for disposal of the original petition afresh in the light of the relevant rule mentioned above. No costs.