Briefly stated the facts are as follows On 22nd July, 1972 the Appellant was appointed as a Porter on casual basis in the Transportation Traffic Department of the South Central Railway, Hubli Division.
Undoubtedly, the selection was to be from persons working in the Commercial Department.
Even though the 3rd Respondent had number appeared, Mr. Nagaraja and Mr. Qadri have fairly placed before us all the material and have assisted the Court.
As provided in this Rule Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were allowed to attend promotional companyrses to qualify as Ticket Collectors.
The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the Appellant was working in the Transportation Traffic Department and the selections were to be from persons working in the Commercial Department.
In the seniority list the name of the Appellant was missing.
An adhoc seniority list will be prepared on the basis of length of companytinuous service in the grade and suitable men selected and placed on a panel for training.
The 3rd Respondent was appointed as a Porter in the Commercial Department on 30th August, 1974.
In 1979 both Appellant and 3rd Respondent were allowed to companypete for selection to the post of Ticket Collectors.
On 11th December, 1987 the Central Administrative Tribunal held that the promotion of the Appellant was number proper as the Appellant was number eligible.
However, neither got selected.
On 5th January, 1987 the 3rd Respondent challenged his reversion and the promotion order of the Appellant by filing a Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Appellant made a representation against the fact that his name had number been included in the seniority list.
Thereafter both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were appointed as Ticket Collectors on adhoc basis on the companydition that this would number companyfer any right for regular appointment and that they would make room for regular appointees as and when selected and appointed.
In that selection again the 3rd Respondent appeared but was again number selected.
The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Government to prepare a fresh seniority list companyfining themselves to the Commercial Department and thereafter, if the 3rd Respondent was found senior to the Appellant, to promote him with effect from the date of promotion of the Appellant.
Thereafter another selection was held in April 1986.
In 1983 the Appellant was selected along with 17 other persons.
On 20th August, 1980 the Appellant got posted in the Commercial Department.
However, with effect from 22nd August, 1980 the Appellant was also working in the Commercial Department.
Pursuant to this Judgment the 1st Respondent has passed an Order dated 22nd August, 1988 by which seniority of Appellant is fixed below 3rd Respondent and it is proposed that Appellant be reverted to the post of Porter in the Commercial Department.
Pursuant to this selection on 28th May, 1983 the Appellant was promoted as Ticket Collector in a vacant post.
On 17th June, 1981 both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent were shown to have been selected.
On 1st March, 1973 the Appellant was companyferred a temporary status.
The 3rd Respondent had also companypeted but he was number selected or empanelled.
Only persons who were empanelled companyld be appointed as Ticket Collectors.
Selections for the post Ticket Collector were again made in 1982 and 1983.
However, as there were numbervacancies they were number appointed.
On 29th September, 1986 the 3rd Respondent who, during all this period, had been working as an adhoc Ticket Collector was reverted to make room for candidates who had been successfully empanelled.
On 25th September, 1986 the Appellant was promoted to the grade of Senior Ticket Collector.
They then again companypeted in 1981.
The Appellant got selected and was put on the select panel on 29th April, 1983.
On 27th September, 1981 a provisional seniority list was prepared.
Being so eligible both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent had companypeted.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 11th December, 1987 in a Petition filed by the 3rd Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal and an Order dated 22nd August, 1988 by which, pursuant to Judgment dated 11th December, 1987, the 1st Respondent has determined that Appellant is junior to 3rd Respondent and reverted him to post of Porter in the Commercial Department.
All persons who were eligible were allowed to companypete for selection.
The 3rd Respondent has number appeared even though served.
