Delhi High Court
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors on 2 February, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~7
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8185/2014
Date of decision: 2nd February, 2016
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SANJAY BHARDWAJ & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajeshekhar Rao, Advocate for R-
1 to 4.
Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. by this writ petition impugns
order dated 2nd January, 2014 passed by the Principal Bench of the
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2306/2012. The impugned
order, in brief, holds that the respondents employees would be
assigned notional date of promotion as Sub Divisional Engineers, with
all consequential benefits such as counting of their service for further
promotion, consequential annual increments etc. with effect from 23rd
January, 2002.
2. The respondents had appeared and were selected on the basis of
the result of the Departmental Competitive examination under 25%
quota for vacancies, which had arisen during the years 1996-97 to
2000-01 from the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer to Telecom
Engineering Service. Examination under 25% quota was first
announced to be held on 23rd July, 2001, but was postponed and
finally held on 1st December, 2002. The appointments, in fact, were
made only on 26th June, 2004. In the meanwhile, on 28th December,
2001, several Junior Telecom Officers were promoted to Group-B
cadre under 75% promotion quota on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness.
3. The respondents had urged that their seniority should be
counted from the date when the Junior Telecom Officers belonging to
Group-B were promoted under 75% quota in the ratio of one candidate
from 25% quota, below three candidates in the 75% promotion quota.
The Tribunal has accepted the plea and stance taken by the respondents.
4. The decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustainable in view of
the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on identical facts in Civil
Appeal No. 7830/2014, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S.K.
Dubey & Ors decided on 12th August, 2014. The Supreme Court
while dealing with a similar order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur has observed that the directions
cannot be sustained for several reasons including there was no rule
with regard to assigning a notional date of promotion with
retrospective effect and ROTA was not applicable. Lastly, it was well
settled that a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority in
earlier years but shall get a seniority of the year in which his/her
appointment was made in the absence of express provision to the
contrary. It was held that the applicable rules have nothing to do with
inter se seniority between promotees of 75% quota based upon
seniority-cum-fitness and 25% competitive exam quota on the basis of
which the respondents have been selected. Notably, the Supreme
Court had set aside decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench dated 26th April, 2010 passed in OA No.181/2009
and the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 21 st April, 2011.
This decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies and covers the
facts and legal question raised. The impugned decision of the
Tribunal cannot be sustained.
5. There is an additional reason to allow the present petition.
The present OA seeking back dated notional promotion with effect
from 2002 was filed in the year 2012. As noted above, the
respondents were appointed on 26th April, 2004 to Telecom
Engineering Service under 25% competitive exam quota. There was,
therefore, a belated challenge.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition has to be
allowed and the impugned order dated 2nd January, 2014 is hereby
quashed and the directions given therein are set aside. There will be
no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
FEBRUARY 02, 2016
NA
