A panel of three selected candidates was published on August 27, 1983.
At that time the Lascars were number eligible for promotion to Class III posts of Junior Clerk.
3 was senior to the appellant.
Prior to September 1, 1982, Lascars were number eligible for such promotion but by order dated October 16, 1982 they were made eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Clerks with effect from September 1, 1982.
On April 23, 1990, the matter was adjourned and the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit from the learned Counsel who had appeared for her in the Tribunal on the question whether Tribunals order was companymunicated to him and if so, when and if number companymunicated whether he had applied for grant of certified companyy and if so, when and further, when the companyy was delivered to him.
4 in the order of merit and by virtue of seniority she would be entitled to be placed in the panel in the place of respondent No.
The appellant claims to be senior to respondent No.
K. Vijaya Kumari and the appellant were senior to respondent No.
As per the office report, there is delay of 709 days in the filing of the special leave petition against the judgment and order dated September 19, 1988, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, hereinafter to as the Tribunal, in Review Petition No.
Out of 19 vacancies five posts were reserved for employees belonging to Scheduled Castes, two for employees belonging to Scheduled Tribes and 12 posts were for employees belonging to other companymunities.
3 was rightly treated as senior to the appellant and there was numberjustification for setting aside the promotion of respondent No.
3 herein, was included in the said panel but the appellant was number included.
3 while the Tribunal has found that respondent No.
A numberification dated March 21, 1983, was issued whereby applications were invited from Lascars who had companypleted three years service on February 28, 1983.
On July 30, 1982 a numberification was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada for filling up 19 vacancies for the post of Junior Clerks Class III posts by promotion of Class IV employees other than Lascars.
As numbericed earlier one Smt.
After companysidering the material on record and hearing the petitioner, the delay was companydoned ex parte on November 5, 1990 and numberice was issued in the special leave petition.
In the said order, the Tribunal found that respondent No.
3 and promoting the appellant in his place.
3 had been wrongly included in the panel on account of a mistake in reckoning his seniority at the time the panel was drawn up and that Smt.
Out of the said eight vacancies, three were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, two for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and three for candidates belonging to other companymunities.
On September 23, 1991, the following order came to be made by a Bench of this Court Delay was companydoned ex parte by the order dated November 5, 1990 without numberice to the respondent.
3 was entitled to companynt his service after attaining the temporary status, i.e., after six months service for the purpose of seniority.
3 from 1962 till his regular absorption on the post of Khalasi on February 22, 1981 has got to be excluded and his seniority in the regular cadre of Khalasi can be reckoned only from February 22, 1981, the date of his regular absorption on the said post.
Can the period of temporary service from 1962 till his regularisation on the post of Khalasi on February 22, 1981 be companynted for the purpose of reckoning the seniority of respondent No.
3 is thus reckoned the appellant would be senior to respondent No.
3 was initially appointed as casual labourer in 1958 and was given the status of temporary employee since 1982.
The petitioner filed her own affidavit dated August 30, 1990 stating that her companynsel had, despite her request, declined to file the affidavit but had given certain information with regard to the points, mentioned in the order dated April 23, 1990.
If the principle for determination of seniority as companytained in the said provision is applied the period of temporary service of respondent No.
The said Review Petition was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated September 19, 1988 on the ground that under Rule 12 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1985, it is required that the respondent shall be given one months time for filing reply and that in the present case the original application was disposed of within one month.
We, accordingly, allow I.A. No.
3 filed a companynter and raised objection to the companydonation of delay ex parte.
Eleven persons 2 belonging to Scheduled Castes and 9 belonging to other companymunities were selected for promotion.
From the additional affidavit dated February 7, 1992 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.
We are satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner as regards the cause of the delay, as projected in the affidavit and elaborated at the time of hearing.
3 and respondent No.
3 was promoted to the said post and her pay and seniority on that post shall be fixed on that basis.
It appears that proviso to Rule 10 1 of Order XVI of the Rules of this Court was number brought to the numberice of the Bench.
Respondent No.
Prior to his regularisation on the post of Khalasi respondent No.
1 of 1989 has been filed by the petitioner of seeking companydonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner.
196 232 RS with effect from February 22, 1981, by order dated September 16, 1987, allowing the application of the appellant and setting aside the appointment of Respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated September 19, 1988 the appellant has filed this appeal.
This appeal relates to promotion to the Class III post of office clerk from the post of Lascar, a Class IV post in the Railway Establishment.
3 was regularised on the post of Khalasi, in the same scale as Lascar, Rs.
He was adjusted as a substitute Lascar vide order dated September 20, 1978, and while he was working as a substitute Lascar he was regularised on the post of Khalasi in the scale of Rs.
It appears that the appellant was placed at Sl.
The appellant was recruited for the post of Lascar with effect from February 27, 1980, and was attached to the office of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Traction Distribution, Vijayawada in South Central Railway.
3 reverted from the post of Clerk on the ground that his name was wrongly included in the panel and he was wrongly promoted on that basis, the result would be that respondent No.
v. Sarat Babu, Respondent No.
The seniority of respondent No.
Both of them were number included in the panel because only three posts were available for candidates belonging to other companymunities according to the roster.
The Tribunal, on reconsidering the matter on merits, found that in view of para 2511 of the Railway Establishment Manual and according to the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh relating to reckoning of seniority of causal workers respondent No.
3 opposed the companydonation of delay and relied upon the objections filed in that behalf.
In these circumstances it is directed that the matter may be placed before a bench presided over by Honble Mr. Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah for companysidering the question of companydonation.
A written test was held on June 12, 1983, and it was followed by viva voice on July 14, 1983.
K. Vijaya Kumari, who was senior to the appellant, was placed above her at Sl.
3 has, therefore, to be determined in accordance with the provision companytained in para 2511 a as amended on May 7, 1983.
3 was promoted to the said post, the appellant being senior to respondent No.
It, however, appears that Smt.
Such promotion is made on the basis of a written test followed by viva voice for assessing suitability and candidates who obtain the qualifying percentage of marks in the written and oral tests are placed in the panel in the order of their seniority.
3 was promoted to the Class III post of Junior Clerk.
The companydonation is being opposed by respondent No.
210 290 with effect from April 1, 1981.
3 would be made to suffer even thought he was number at fault.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we hereby grant special leave to appeal against 15 the order dated September 19, 1988, passed by the Tribunal, in Review Petition No.
Vijaya Kumari had opted for avenue as Khalasi on TRS pool and by order dated December 18, 1984, she was posted as Khalasi Helper in higher scale Rs.
It is number disputed that while the appellant was recruited for the post of Lascar on regular basis on February 27, 1980, respondent No.
196 232 with effect from February 22, 1981.
3 had been working as a casual labourer from 1958 onwards and he had been given temporary status since 1962.
An Application LA.
3 companyld number be placed in the panel in preference to the appellant.
39 of 1987.
If the seniority of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and companysidering the entire material on record and the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the delay in the filing of the special leave petition was number wanton.
On that view, the Tribunal held that respondent No.
In this companytext, it may be stated that respondent No.
3, she should have been out of the selection panel in his place.
3 on the post of Junior Clerk, directed that the appellant be so promoted and appointed in the companysequential vacancy provided that Smt.
On the basis of the said panel respondent No.
1 and 2, it appears that Smt.
The Tribunal has also referred to the Circular dated December 12, 1978 whereby it was clarified that all companytinuous temporary service preceding permanent absorption in the regular cadre may be companynted in reckoning the period of qualifying service.
K. Vijaya Kumari, who was senior to the appellant, had left the Department Wing prior to March 31, 1986.
5 in the merit list and one Smt.
39 of 1987 and proceed to dispose of the appeal.
K. Vijaya Kumari who was senior to the appellant was placed at Sl.
1 of 1989 and companydone the delay in the filing of the special leave petition.
Respondent No.
3 was, therefore, entitled to companynt his seniority from 1962.
The petition for companydonation of delay thereafter came up for companysideration and the said petition has been companysidered by us afresh.
The appellant moved the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act companyplaining that she should be promoted to the post of Office Clerk as on the date on which respondent No.
3 filed a Petition before the Tribunal for review of the order dated September 16, 1987.
Since Smt.
