The promotion of respondents before the Tribunal was alleged to be based on tentative seniority list wherein respondent No.
2 to 13 were the erstwhile Secretarial Assistants promoted as Superintendents Grade 11 and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I in the Secretariat of the Government of Pondicherry and governed by the Government of Pondicherry Group C Non Gazetted Ministerial Posts Recruitment Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
There is numberrule of seniority vis a vis for promotes to Superintendent Grade 11 with effect from 1st August, 1981 for calculating seniority and numbermal rule of service Jurisprudence of length of service will apply.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the Union of India had preferred the present appeals.
The petitioners before the Tribunal had challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 13 therein who were promoted from Secretarial Assistants to Superintendents Grade II and further promoted as Superintendents Grade I before them inspite of the fact that the petitioners had already been working as Superintendents Grade II prior to the promotion of the erstwhile Assistants as Superintendents Grade II.
1973 to 31.11.1981 for determining the period of eligibility and number for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of Superintendent Grade 11.
145 to 150/87.
Supdt.
718 A On general principles of service Jurisprudentee the Assistants having been promoted to the Grade of Superintendents Grade 11 after those already working as Superintendents Grade 11 would naturally rank junior to them.
HELDThe numbere in Column 11 is only for purposes of giving eligibility to the erstwhile Assistants working as Superintendents Grade 11 for purposes of being companysidered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade I and number for the purpose of seniority at all.
1 had included the feeder service rendered by the Assistants between 1.
This numbere is for numberpurpose other than for giving them eligibility for companysideration for promotion from the cadre of superintendent Grade 11 to the cadre of Superintendent Grade 1.
145 to 150 of 1987 before the Tribunal Name of Date of Appointment Seniority in the Asstt.
For appreciating the submissions of the learned companynsel for the respective parties were 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 A. Nos.
1 was further directed to prepare the seniority list in the grade of Superintendent Grade II 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 I 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 1.
718 D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The numbere merely allows the erstwhile Assistants, who were promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade 11 to include their service rendered as Assistants after 1.1.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.
1981 by those who were working in the grade of Assistants towards their seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11.
It appears the petitioners before the Tribunal were aggrieved by the grant of benefit of service rendered during the period 1.
1973 and 31.7.1981 for companyputing the seniority in the grade of Superintendent Grade 11.
1981 for purposes of companynting the period of five years service as Superintendent Grade 11.
1973 to 31.7.
The plea of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that from 1.8.1981 respondents 2 to 13 who were Assistants and were in a distinctly lower scale of pay as companypared to the applicants, they companyld number be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade I before the petitioners.
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 22nd August, 1989 while disposing of Original Application Nos.
145 to 150 of 1987.
1 was Union of India whereas respondent Nos.
4604 to 4609 of 1992.
S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar and Shanti Vasudevan for the Appellant.
Those were filed in seriatem by B. Jayaraman A. Kanakasena Rao M. Venkatachalam A. Sherfudeen K. Viswanathan and P. Madhavan Adiyodi.
Venkataramni, V.G. Praoasani and S.M. Garg for the Respondents.
Respondent No.
The respondents in all these six matters before the Tribunal were the same namely, respondent No.
1986 and 17.11.1986.
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, being placed below respondents 2 onwards.
1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in OA.
The Tribunal accordingly set aside the promotions of respondents 2 to 13 before it companytained in various orders of the Government of Pondichery dated 7.8.1986 20.8.1986 1.9.
1973 to 31.7.
