Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Bhimsen Panda on 24 November, 2016
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2010 (s)
Union of India & others
- V/s -
Bhimsen Panda & others.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Menon;
Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Anjuli Palo ; J
......................................................................................................................
Shri S. K. Mishra for the petitioners.
Smt. Shobha Menon with Ku. Ankita Khare for respondent
no. 1.
......................................................................................................................
ORDER
(24/11/16) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made to an order Annexure P-1 dated 25/08/09 whereby the petition filed by respondent no. 1 Shri Bhimsen Panda has been allowed and he has been directed to be promoted as Senior Tax Assistant against a vacancy which arose in the year 2001-02.
2. Respondent no. 1 filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order dated 24/12/01 whereby juniors to him in the cadre of Tax Assistant were promoted as Senior Tax Assistant overlooking his eligibility. It was his grievance that instead of considering his case for a vacancy that arose in the year 2001-02, he has been considered and promoted as Senior Tax Assistant on 28/11/03 for a vacancy that arose in the year 2002-03. It was said that based on the written examination conducted for the post in question that was held in May 2000, results of which were 2 declared on 5/01/01, the cut-off-date should have been fixed as 1/01/2001 and if this was done, petitioner would have been considered for promotion for a vacancy that arose in the year 2001-
02.
3. The Tribunal examined the entire matter and found that respondent no. 1 participated in the written examination that was conducted in May 2000, results of which were declared on 5/01/01 and if the circulars dated 18/11/96 and 22/05/09 are taken note of, it is clear that the date of passing of an examination is to be determined as the date on which the last paper of the said examination was held and not the date of declaration of result. This circular of 18/11/96 was again clarified on 22/05/09 and it was stipulated that the cut-off-date to calculate the year in which the vacancy fell would be the first day of January of the year in which the results were declared. Accordingly, holding that the result of the examination was declared on 5/01/01, therefore, the cut-off-date should be 1st January, 2001 relief has been granted to respondent no. 1 and challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed and the only ground canvassed before us was the reason given in the order rejecting the representation of respondent no. 1 Annexure A-9 dated 27/11/07 wherein it is stated that the circulars relied upon by the Tribunal for determining the cut-off-date are for fixation of increment only and is not for determining the cut-off-date on which the vacancy arose for promotion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure A-9 the communication made to the petitioner and argued that this being the position, the Tribunal has misread the circulars of the department and applied it for determining the case of promotion and seniority whereas the circulars refer to date of increment.
5. From the circulars as are available on record, we do not find any stipulation in the circular which speaks about its applicability on the purpose of fixation of increment, when we confronted, learned counsel for the petitioners with this position he was unable to demonstrate before us as to on what basis this finding is recorded 3 in Annexure A-9 to say that the circulars relied upon by respondent no. 1 are only for the purpose of grant of increment.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to bring on record any such circular. We find that the Tribunal based on the circulars in detail has held that the cut-off-date in this regard has to be 1/01/2001 and respondent no. 1 having fulfilled the same is entitled for the said purpose.
7. That apart, reliance was made on an order dated 29 th April, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 302 /03 Ritu Mishra Vs. Union of India to say that in this case identical submissions made by the Tribunal was rejected. We find that this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal in para 7 of the order itself and it has been held that the case of Ritu Mishra (supra) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is found by the Tribunal that respondent nos. 6 to 21 are junior to respondent no. 1/petitioner in the feeder cadre and petitioner was not considered for promotion along with them and when the eligibility of the juniors have been determined w.e.f. 1/01/01, respondent no. 1 is also entitled for similar relief.
8. Taking note of all these circumstances, the Tribunal decided the matter and we see no reason in the same warranting consideration now.
9. The petition is therefore dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo) Acting Chief Justice Judge Vy/-