It was also the case on behalf of the department that as respondent No.
The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court granted the relief to respondent No.
It is an admitted position that respondent No.
4 herein applied for the post of Chargeman GradeII Electrical in 25 Direct Recruitment quota as well as in 25 LDCE quota.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.03.15 162630 IST Reason The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under That the appellant herein was appointed as Semiskilled worker on 25.05.1991 in the respondent number 2 office, namely, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Trichy.
It is an admitted position that the appellant herein was promoted to the post of the Chargeman GradeII in the LDCE quota.
That thereafter, the appellant was further promoted and designated as Highly Skilled worker on 31.03.2000.
2 stating, inter alia, that as he was appointed to the post of Chargeman GradeII in the month of April 2000, much prior to the appellant was promoted and, therefore, there is a mistake in the selection list and he ought to have been placed in the seniority list above the appellant.
4 before the learned Tribunal that as he was selected for the appointment on the post of Chargeman GradeII against the LDCE quota also and as he being more meritorious than the appellant, and that if he would have been told with respect to the rotaquota rule and would have been told that a direct recruitee shall be placed below the LDCE promotee and below the promotee who has been promoted in LDCE quota, in that case, he would have opted for the appointment against LDCE quota.
That the next promotional post was the Chargeman GradeII Electrical .
4 was rejected on the ground that he has been placed at an appropriate place in the respective seniority list as per the rotaquota rule.
Hence the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
However, at the relevant time, he did number accept his promotion to the post of Chargeman GradeII Electrical in the 25 LDCE quota.
4 was appointed in the 25 Direct Recruitment quota.
Consequently, the learned Tribunal directed the department to place the original applicant in the seniority list above the appellant herein and one another.
Respondent No.
2.1 That thereafter respondent No.
4 made a representation dated 12.12.2005 to respondent No.
It was the case on behalf of respondent No.
4 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras by way of O.A. No.
It appears that, thereafter, the seniority list in the cadre of Chargeman GradeII was published companysidering the relevant Rule and, as per the rule position in that year, the direct recruitee was to be placed below the LDCE, as the LDCE selection process is stated as Fasttrack promotion.
It appears that respondent No.
He was selected in both the quotas Direct Recruitment and LDCE.
161 of 2006.
Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the O.A. 2.2 However, by the judgment and order dated 31.10.2006, the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. by observing that as an employee respondent No.
4 was placed in the seniority list below the appellant, as respondent No.
4 herein in the seniority list above the appellant herein.
4 did number accept his appointment promotion in LDCE quota though selected and offered and he companytinued his appointment as a direct recruitee.
4 cannot be denied his legitimate right to be placed at an appropriate place in the seniority list, as otherwise also he was selected for a promotion in the LDCE quota also.
4 that he made a representation which ought to have been companysidered favourably.
191 dated 28.11.1984 by the Government of India and the post was required to be filled in as per the quota prescribed for that post, namely, 50 by way of promotion 25 by way of LDCE Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and 25 by way of Direct Recruitment.
Therefore, respondent No.
However, he was appointed in the Direct Recruitment quota in the month of April 2000 and he resumed his duty on the post of Chargeman GradeII in the month of April 2000 itself.
4 on the ground that the department ought to have informed and or advised the employee with respect to the seniority to be fixed on the basis of rotaquota rule and as the department failed to do so, respondent No.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Tribunal, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court and, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and companyfirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
That the post of Chargeman GradeII was governed by the statutory Rule as numberified in SRO No.
That vide companymunication dated 20.12.2005, the representation of respondent No.
The O.A. was opposed by the department by submitting that the seniority list has been fixed as per the rotaquota rule.
4 was appointed in the Direct Recruitment quota, at the relevant time, he did number accept the promotion in the LDCE quota.
That the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Chargeman GradeII Electrical vide order dated 08.08.2000 in the quota of 25 LDCE.
R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No.
18958 of 2007 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and upheld the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Madras, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
It was the case on behalf of respondent No.
That thereafter he was promoted as Skilled worker on 21.10.1993.
4 was number aware of the quotarota rule maintained by the department and also how the seniority list will be fixed between the LDCE appointee and direct recruitee and if he had been told that as per the quotarota rule, the LDCE candidate would rank senior even though he was appointed as direct recruitee four months earlier, he would have definitely accepted the promotion through LDCE quota.
It is an admitted position that, as per the rules, the seniority was required to be fixed as per the quotarota rule and as per the rule position in that year the direct recruitee was to be placed below the LDCE quota, since the LDCE selection process was treated as the Fast Track promotion.
