Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saikat Roy vs M/O Mines on 28 January, 2026
1 O.A No. 1264/2018
Item 44 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1264/2018
Reserved on : 13.01.2026
Pronounced on : 28.01.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Saikat Roy
S/o Late Shri. Baidyanath Roy
Aged about 36 years.
R/o 58/3/I,
Fullbagan Road, Baghajatin,
Kolkata-700086
Presently residing at:-
Qtr No. 22, Type III, GSI Complex,
Phulnegar, Yerwara, Alandi Road,
Pune-411006 ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Ministry of Mines,
Through Secretary
Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110 0012
2. Geological Survey of India
Through Director General
27-J.L. Nehru Road,
Kolkata-700016
Sewa Bhawan
R.K Puram, New Delhi-110066
3. Central Region, Geological Survey of India
State Unit, Maharashtra,
Alandi Road, Pune-411006 ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. A. K. Singh)
Digitally signed by MAYA
MAYA BAHADUR
BAHADUR SINGH
SINGH TARAGI
TARAGI
2 O.A No. 1264/2018
Item 44 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
This is the second round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a. To set aside the order bearing no. 6039/SP/A- 21011/Geol/2016/19A dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Respondent no. 2;
b. To re-draft the final gradation list of officers in the grade of Geologists as on 01.04.2016 bearing no. -A-21011/Geol/2016/19A dated 02.09.2016 qua the Applicant to reflect seniority at par with the batch of officers from the examination conducted in 2009;
c. To grant all consequential reliefs to the Applicant as per his merit vis-à-vis other officers of Geologist examination batch of 2009;
d. To pass such further or other order(s) and/or direction (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the examination conducted by UPSC in the year 2009 for recruitment to the post of Junior Geologist, the applicant secured 190th rank. Thereafter, he appeared in the medical board of the respondent organisation which declared him unfit on account of lasik surgery undergone by the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant knocked the doors of this Tribunal vide OA No. 2078/2012 which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2013 directing the respondents to consider the applicant's case for appointment as Junior Geologist by taking him to be medically fit, within four weeks, subject to the outcome of the SLP filed by one Ms. Sreeja. However, the respondents did not implement the said order and all the candidates except the applicant joined and superseded the applicant. Subsequently, after a considerable Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 3 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) delay of two months, a provisional appointment letter was issued to him on 10.02.2014 and the applicant joined them only on 06.03.2014. However, vide provisional gradation list dated 12.07.2016 he was denied seniority as has been granted to his counter parts. Thereafter, the applicant represented to the respondents on 02.09.2016 requesting them to treat him at par with his batch mates of 2009 who appeared along with him in Geologist exam. However, the said representation was rejected stating that as the applicant was separated from his batch and placed low in the seniority list to keep intact the en-bloc seniority of candidates from 2011 exam who joined in December, 2013. Rather, the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 549 in the final gradation list which was contrary to the placement of his juniors who joined even later than him, at Sl. No. 471 and 484. This action of the respondents is alleged to be illegal which denied parity to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant is again before this Tribunal.
3. The counsel of the applicant argued on the following grounds :-
"A. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Avinash Singh vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 5400/2010] has emphatically held that:-
"17. It is settled law that if appointment is by selection, seniority of the entire batch has to be reckoned with respect to the merit position obtained in the selection and not on the fortuitous circumstance on the date on which a person is made to join.
18. We highlight in the instant case the fortuitous circumstance of the petitioners being made to join as Assistant Commandant on 08.08.2005 is not the result of anything created by the petitioners but is a result of a supine indifference and negligence on the part of the ITBP officials."
B. The Applicant was constrained to join the service on a later date due to the failure of the Respondents to appoint him with the batch of officers from the 2009 exam inspite of being medically fit. This Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 4 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) Hon'ble Tribunal by its order dated 12.08.2013 merely clarified and reiterated the legal position by holding that the Applicant was to be considered as medically fit for service as a Geologist. The Applicant cannot be made to bear the brunt of the Respondent's failure to appoint the Applicant along with his batch mates. C. Fixing of seniority qua the Applicant on the basis of date of joining, when there were intervening fortuitous circumstances and faults on part of the Respondent authorities is in violation of and impinges Article 14 of the Constitution.
D. It is the self admitted position of the Respondent Respondents that seniority organisation is maintained batch wise. The candidates sitting in an examination together are considered for seniority en-bloc. The batch of officers who joined in December 2013 were assigned seniority as a bloc. The Applicant was not assigned a position in consonance with which his batch was conferred to ensure that the bloc wise seniority of 2011 batch remained intact. This exercise of the Respondents is discriminatory and without any basis in law.
E. The Applicant has not been treated at par with the 2009 batch of officers to which the Applicant belongs. The Respondents in the case of the Applicant have adopted a gravely discriminatory stance which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Because the position of the Respondent no. 2 that the Applicant's seniority had been fixed as per his date of Joining the Respondent organisation is without any merit. The said submission of the Respondents' is gravely misplaced as in the final gradation list, Geologists at serial number 471 and 484 who had joined the Respondent no. 2 later than the Applicant were placed higher in the said seniority list.
G. There is an inordinate delay by the Respondents in complying with the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 12.08.2013. The Respondents had been directed by this Tribunal to comply with its order within four weeks. The Respondents for reasons unknown delayed the Applicant's appointment substantially. It is in this the Intervening period that an entire batch joined the Respondent organisation, thus, superseding Applicant. This delay by the Respondents has cost the Applicant dearly as he has now been placed way below in the seniority list."
4. To buttress his arguments, the counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Sigh Narwal and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others - CA No. 2098/2007 dated 08.07.2008, para 9 of which has been highlighted by him which is quoted below :-
Digitally signed by MAYA
MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 5 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) "9. There is no dispute about these general principles. But the question here is in regard to seniority of Respondents 4 to 16 selected on 1-10-1993 against certain vacancies of 1992-1993 who were not appointed due to litigation, and those who were selected against subsequent vacancies. All others from the same merit list declared on 1 -10-1993 were appointed on 2-6-1994.
Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies." Reliance has also been placed upon decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Avinash Singh And Ors. vs. UOI and Ors. - W.P (C) No. 5400/2010 dated 26.05.2011, para 17 of which has been reproduced below :-
"17. It is settled law that if appointment is by selection, seniority of the entire batch has to be reckoned with respect to the merit position obtained in the selection and not on the fortuitous circumstance on the date on which a person is made to join."
Also the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sreeja K. vs. UOI & Ors. in W.P(C) No. 3196/2012 dated 29.05.2012 has held in paras 5 & 6 as under :-
"5. From the above, it is clear that the requirement for the candidate's eye-sight needs to conform to the standard prescribed in the said Regulation. In the first instance when the test was conducted at Safdurjung Hospital, the petitioner's eye- sight did not fit within the standard prescribed in the said Regulation, However, subsequently, she underwent LASIK Surgery and as a result of which, the eye-sight improved dramatically and fell within the standard prescribed in the said Regulation. This would be apparent from the fact that so far as distance vision is concerned, the visual acuity for the better eye as per the standard prescribed should be either 6/9 in both the eyes or 6/6 in the better eye and 6/12 in the worse eye. In view of the result of the second medical examination, we find that the petitioner has 6/6 vision in both the eyes, after LASIK Surgery. As such, she now conforms to the visual acuity prescribed in the said Regulation. In fact, even the total amount of Myopia, including cylinder, is much less than 4.00D. The extent has been stated in the test results which we have already indicated to be -0.25 sh. and -0.5 cy. Therefore, in so far as the standards prescribed by the Regulation are concerned, the petitioner has fulfilled those standards after the said LASIK Surgery.
6. We fail to see as to how the Medical Board could then have declared the petitioner unfit. In fact, there are no rules prescribing that the person who has undergone LASIK Surgery would be disqualified or declared unfit for the post of Junior Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 6 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) Geologist, in the Geological Survey of India. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out a letter dated 02.09.2011, issued by the Director General, Geological Survey of India, to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Indicating that after discussions held amongst the senior officers of Geological Survey of India at Central Headquarters, Kolkata on 18.08.2011, a general consensus was reached to the effect that any candidate having undergone LASIK Surgery cannot be disqualified medically for appointment in Geological Survey of India. However, in the same letter, it was added that if the Ministry of Mines approves, such candidate may be effectively deployed in one of the following offices/projects:-
1) Marine Survey / or
2) Laboratory related works"
5. Per contra, counsel of the respondents opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and based on their counter reply argued inter alia that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction over this matter as the impugned order had been passed from Kolkata and the applicant is posted in Pune thus prayed that the OA be dismissed on this ground. To support his argument, the counsel highlighted Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 which talks about jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The same is quoted below :-
"6. Place of filing applications. (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction. (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen."
In response to the contention of the applicant regarding his placement in the seniority list counsel for the respondents highlighted paras 4.8 to 4.9 of his counter which is reproduced below :-
"4.8 to 4.9 The application of the applicant was decided on merit by the Competent Authority in GSI. Shri Saikat Roy was initially declared unfit on account of LASIK Vision Correction and was issued offer of appointment much later on 10.02.2014 based on verdict of Hon'ble CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 18.09.2013. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the direction of the Hon'ble CAT is to treat Shri Saikat Roy as Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 7 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) medically FIT and the Hon'ble Tribunal upheld the contention of the candidate that since Lasik was not mentioned as a disqualification in Rules for Geologist Exam. 2009, employment under Govt. cannot be denied on that ground. Accordingly, after completion of all official formalities, offer of appointment was issued to him on 10.02.2014 and the applicant joined GSI on 06.03.2014. Since by then candidates of Geologist Exam. 2010 & 2011 have already joined in December, 2012 and December, 2013 respectively, Shri Roy was placed immediately below 2011 Batch en-block. Therefore, it is clear that the stand taken by the Department is in order. Hence, the averment made by the applicant is denied herewith."
With regard to the case of Sreeja K, the counsel submitted that the said candidate belonged to the 2009 batch and she joined much before the batch of 2010 who joined on 03.12.2012. Hence, Ms. Sreeja K. was placed in between 2009 and 2010 batch.
6. Controverting the contentions of the respondents, the counsel for the applicant argued through his rejoinder that the OA is well within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal as the respondent no.1 Ministry of Mines is situated in Delhi. He thus pressed para 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 which reads as under :-
"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the Jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, "order" means an order made -
(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or by any corporation for society owned or controlled by the Government; or
(b) ****"
Also he took shelter under Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 which permits the applicant to file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action has wholly or in part arisen.Digitally signed by MAYA
MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 8 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) Answering paras 4.8 to 4.9 of the counter, the counsel of the applicant highlighted para 10 of his rejoinder which is quoted below :-
"10. That it is respectfully submitted that the Respondents have adopted a highly untenable stand in their counter affidavit to deny the right of seniority correctly accruable to the Applicant. It is the Respondent's own submission in Para 4.8 to 4.9 of its counter affidavit that this Hon'ble Tribunal had upheld the contention of the Applicant in O.A. No. 2078/2012 since Lasik was not mentioned as a disqualification in Rules for Geologist Exam 2009 and thus, employment with the Government could not be denied on that ground."
Moreover, he stated that the respondents had not strictly complied with the direction of this Tribunal passed in OA No. 2078/2012 within the stipulated time of four weeks which had cost the applicant his seniority inasmuch as they directed the applicant to join only on 06.03.2014.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court. We have noted that in terms of the ratio given in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Judgment in WP(C) No. 3196/2012 - Sreeja K. vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) that there are no rules prescribing that the persons who has undergone LASIK Surgery would be disqualified or declared unfit for the post of a Junior Geologist in Geological Survey of India. Also as per the ratio given in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's judgment in WP (C) No. 5400/2010 in Avinash Singh and Others vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) it is a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that if appointment is by selection, then seniority of the entire batch has to be reckoned with respect to the merit position obtained in the selection and not on the fortuitous circumstances on the date on which a Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 9 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) person is made to join. Also as per the ratio given in Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Balwant Singh Narwal and others vs. State of Haryana & Others (2008) (supra), it has been clearly held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.
8. We have noted that the applicant successfully cleared the examination for recruitment of Junior Geologist in the year 2009 and secured 190th rank. Unfortunately he was wrongly declared unfit by the Medical Board on account of LASIK Surgery done by him. In our considered opinion, this action of the respondents was patently unjust, illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in terms of the analysis discussed above. Also placing the applicant below Ms. Sreeja who qualified the UPSC conducted for Junior Geologists exam after him was arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive and no way in sync with the 'due process of law' of being just, reasonable and fair. In the light of this, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the applicant. The instant OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. We quash and set aside the impugned order No. 6039/SP/A-21011/Geol/2016/19A dated 02.09.2016 with a direction to the respondents to re-draft the final gradation list of Geologists as on 01.04.2016 qua the applicant to reflect his seniority at par with the batch of officers from the UPSC examination conducted in 2009 for Junior Geologists. The respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant on notional basis Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH SINGH TARAGI TARAGI 10 O.A No. 1264/2018 Item 44 (C-3) like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority vis-à-vis other officers of Geologists examination batch of 2009. However, there will be no payment of any backwages and salaries on the principle of 'No work no pay'. The above exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar fashion. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
Digitally signed by MAYA
MAYA BAHADUR
BAHADUR SINGH
SINGH TARAGI
TARAGI