However, the seniority in respect of Assistant Engineers Class II was number finalised till November 1987 in view of certain disputes inter se the promotees in the cadre.
On that basis it was companytended that the seniority list published is in order.
The D.P.C. thereafter selected from the category of Assistant Engineers Class II in a meeting held only in May 1988 when the D.P.C. selected the appellants for the vacancies belonging to their quota for the years 1977 to 1982.
The appellants had thus worked for long period varying from 6 to 11 years in the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc before the D.P.C. companyld meet for finalising regular promotion.
3018 of 1997 arising out of judgment dated June 27, 1996 in O.A. No.
5081 of 1994 against judgment and order dated November 5, 1993 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.
Since the appellants herein were number companyered under clause 4C of amended rules 1984 and also additional quota was number available as such, they companyld number be regularised prior to 1985.
The revision of the seniority list which was challenged before the Tribunal, it was submitted, was only a companyrective action though belated to render justice to the affected persons and is in companypliance of the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal dated October 12, 1990 in O.A. No.
286/92.
The stand taken by the applicants before the Tribunal is that while regular promotions to the grade of Executive Engineers from the Assistant Executive Engineers cadre was made regularly from 1976.
2 to make another representation to the Department which the Department was directed to dispose of in accordance with law.
The stand taken by the companytesting respondents is that under the relevant rules the D.P.C. should be headed by a member of UPSC which was number done in the case of the appellants at the time of their ad hoc appointment and appellant No.
There are two channels of recruitment under the relevant recruitment rules and promotions to the post of Executive Engineer are to be made from two categories, namely, Assistant Executive Engineer Class I with five years regular service on seniority cum fitness basis number selection in the 2/3rd quota and the other being Assistant Engineer Class II with eight years regular service on seniority cum merit basis selection method in the 1/3rd quota selection being made by the Departmental Promotion Committee with a member of the UPSC as Chairman.
The pleadings raised in the application, briefly stated, are as under.
Appellant No.
1 and R. Ravindran were number included as initial companystituents since they neither companypleted eight years of service number on ad hoc before April 5, 1975.
286/92.
As a matter of fact, B.V. Ramanamurthy, who is admittedly senior to both the appellants, was only regularised on June 28, 1985 with effect from April 1, 1975 as he came under the purview of clause 4C of amended rules published on September 22, 1984.
108/96 passed by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and other Civil Appeal No.
The Screening Committee was thereafter companyvened by the Department on August 16, 1985 and appellants and officers, including B.V. Ramanamorthy and several other officers, were promoted on the dates indicating against their names.
Since the seniority list dated January 12, 1989 was only provisional the Tribunal directed appellant No.
Pursuant to this direction given by the Madras Bench of the Tribunal it is stated that the seniority had to be re fixed and, therefore, it is companytended that inasmuch as they had rendered service for a long period at any rate in higher cadre and their promotions having been subsequently regularised ought to be treated as giving them seniority in the matter.
Their promotions fall under maintenance clause 4A and 4B of amended rules 1984.
286/92 before the Tribunal.
They, however, formed the initial companystituents in Assistant Engineer Electrical or Assistant Executive Engineer Electrical cadre separately.
In O.A. No.
5086 of 1994 This appeal is directed against the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal on November 5, 1993 in O.A. No.
3 and 4 filed an application A. No.
The two respondents were aggrieved by the letter sent on February 6, 1992 which was accompanied by a seniority list of the Department of Telecommunications whereby the ad hoc services rendered by respondents 3 to 5 before the Tribunal as Executive Engineers from May 25, 1977, February 21, 1982 and April 16, 1982 respectively being treated as regular services and companynted for the purpose of seniority in that grade and proposed to re fix that position in the final seniority list of Executive Engineers as on April 1, 1985 and thus the applicants before the Tribunal being pushed down in the seniority list.
The Tribunal rejected the companytention raised by the Department that he is deemed to be on regular basis only with effect from May 13, 1988 when the D.P.C. met.
3 to 5 before the Tribunal were recruited as Assistant Engineers Electrical Class II and both the applicants and the other respondents were subsequently promoted on ad hoc basis and thereafter they were regularised as Executive Engineers Electrical .
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeal No.
1 was duly companysidered in 1978 and was number found suitable and for that reason his name did number figure in the selection list and there was numberadditional quota vacancy in the grade of Executive Engineer Electrical meant for group B cadre officers upto 1985.
There was companysiderable delay in the introduction of initial companystitution clause and the same was published only in 1984 after a gap of 9 years and came into force with effect from April 5, 1975.
Respondents Nos.
The respondents were directly recruited through the Union Public Service Commission as Assistant Executive Engineers Electrical Class I in the Ministry of Communications, while respondents Nos.
Strong reliance was placed on the companynter affidavit filed before the Tribunal which is to the following effect The first two points after Point No.
The Union of India has also filed two appeals one Civil Appeal No.
