The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade 11 and further promoted as Superintendents Grade 1 before them in spite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade 11 prior to the promotion of erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade 11.
On and from to 1973 1.1.73 1.8.1981 Assistant 210 425 425 700 425 700 Supdt.
Those were filed seriatim by B. Jayaraman A. Kanakasena Rao M. Venkatachalam A. Sherfudeen K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi.
145 to 150 of 1987.
For appreciating the submissions of the learned companynsel for the respective parties we may give a statement showing the dates of appointments in various grades and ranking assigned in respect of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 13 in O.A. Nos.
145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal Name of the Date of Appointment Official Seniority in Asstt.
The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent 1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between January 1, 1973 and July 31, 1981 for companyputing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11.
Supdt.
That has led to a situation where persons promoted to a higher grade of Superintendent Grade 11 before the Assistants and in which posts they were also companyfirmed, are being placed below respondent 2 onwards.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. These six appeals have been filed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated August 22, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos.
The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 beforeit companytained in various orders of the Government of Pondicherry dated August7, 1986 August 20, 1986 September 1, 1986 and November 17, 1986.
It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period January 1, 1973 to July 31, 1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade II.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.
Respondent 1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11 on the basis of the length of service rendered in that grade and thereafter, all the eligible persons may be companysidered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade 1 and that should include persons like respondents 2 to 13 before it who would get the benefit of service rendered by them as Assistant between January 1, 1973 to November 30, 1981 for determining the period of eligibility and number for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade II.
