it was companytended that since the respondents had been absorbed as skilled Fitters earlier than the appellants, they rank senior to them and the Admiral Superintend, Naval Dockyard respondent No.
Both these Notifications were challenged by the Respondents Nos.
They were initially appointed as Temporary casual skilled fitters but were subsequently regularised on or after 15.583 on different dates.
22.9.84 and 20.2.85 and direct the respondents to companysider the promotion of the applicants if number already done in the light of the companyclusions above.
19.11.83 issued by the Ministry of Defence wherein i was provided that persons employed on companytinuous casual basis would become eligible for seniority and promotion to the higher grade on the date on which their services are regularised.
The application is disposed of this with numberorders as to companyts.
4 1 /83/D C IV II dt.
the respondents before the Tribunal on several grounds including that the appellants companyld number be treated as senior to them particularly as the respondents were admitted in the Naval Dockyard Apprentices School, Vishakhapatnam and after qualifying in various Trade Tests, were absorbed as skilled Fitters on different dates between 12.11.79 and 27.1.83.
These appellants were also allowed to appear in the Departmental Qualifying Examination for promotion to the posts of Highly skilled fitter Grade II which they passed and were, therefore, promoted, some with effect from 6.7.84 Vice Naval Dockyard Notification dated 22.9.84 while others with effect from 1.2.85 vide Notification dated 20.2.85.
44 was number justified in treating the appellants as senior to the respondents by including the period of their casual service as regular service for purpose of seniority.
1 43 for short.
Thereafter, the seniority in the promotion cadre shall be arranged in such a matter that it reflects the discrimination in the grade of skilled fitters in which cadre the Casual services rendered is to be ignored.
A perusal of the judgment passed by the Tribunal would indicate that the entire period of casual service of the appellants was excluded and their seniority was companynted from the date of their regular adoption.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The appellants before us wh challenge the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 1993 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench were directly recruited on their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
